Comment

Representation ID: 6379

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Diocese of Chester

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_6792
The suggested policy approach towards housing mix, type, and specialist housing is broadly supported as it recognises the need for diverse, inclusive communities that meet varied demographic and social requirements. However, flexibility should be embedded within the policy to respond to local market conditions and site-specific constraints. Provision for specialist housing should be carefully calibrated to ensure it meets demonstrated local need without imposing unrealistic percentage targets that could hinder delivery. The policy should also emphasise the integration of specialist housing within mainstream developments to promote social cohesion and accessibility.

Comment

Representation ID: 6500

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6915
19 | HO1 Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards mix and type and specialist housing in new developments, as set out in  HO 1 ‘Mix and type of housing in new developments and specialist housing’ above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?   Yes – broadly supported, but it must be tightened.   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base   (Policies H1–H2; Housing Needs Report 2018) shows the priority is smaller, affordable homes (1–2 bed) for younger families and older residents downsizing. A percentage-based mix by size and tenure is essential.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood   Housing growth must be in-town and brownfield-first, not pushed onto locations where it would damage sensitive habitats within the green belt.   🌹 Labour Perspective   National policy commits to genuinely affordable and social rent homes, accessible housing, and higher space standards.   🧠 Wider Context   Colenutt warns of “executive sprawl.” Gallent stresses affordability comes from tenure mix, not just overall volume.   📌 Important Considerations   Policy should adopt a percentage-based mix, prioritising Social Rent and affordable tenures, with requirements for older persons and accessible dwellings. Self-build is welcome but should not displace affordable delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 6703

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

I&O_7123
We agree with the overall approach if an evidenced based policy on housing mix to meet need, however there is a need to avoid an unduly restrictive policy on mix as not all sites can provide all types of housing to meet needs, based on location, size, specifics and viability.  There needs to be flexibility for mix to be agreed on specific sites, reflective of site circumstances, albeit with regard to mix policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 6707

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hooton Estate

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_7127
The suggested policy approach towards housing mix, type, and specialist housing is broadly supported as it recognises the need for diverse, inclusive communities that meet varied demographic and social requirements. However, flexibility should be embedded within the policy to respond to local market conditions and site-specific characteristics, particularly on larger strategic sites such as the land off Chester Road, Ellesmere Port. Provision for specialist housing should be carefully calibrated to meet demonstrated local needs without imposing inflexible percentage targets that could risk delivery. The policy should also emphasise the integration of specialist housing within mainstream developments to promote social cohesion, accessibility, and sustainable communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6754

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7181
Broadly support the approach, but it must be strongly evidence-led. The Housing Needs Assessment should drive policy, ensuring housing mix reflects real local demand, not just national templates. Amendments could include: - Clear percentage targets for different unit sizes reviewed regularly. - Specific provision for older persons, accessible homes, and those with disabilities. (this could also facilitie downsizing and free up larger family homes)

Comment

Representation ID: 7033

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7502
Yes, subject to the findings of the Housing Needs Assessment being robust. The use of percentage ranges is useful but should be an indicator and not rigorously applied to all sites, and these need to be applied with flexibility as each site circumstances and market are different.

Comment

Representation ID: 7135

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7607
The National Space Standards are inadequate.There should be local standards which provide roomier accommodation.

Comment

Representation ID: 7161

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: CDAF

I&O_7636
There is a huge local and national shortage of accessible housing. Golden rules for affordable housng and green belt construction are great but until such time that all developments have a minumum percentage requirement of M4(2) accessible and adaptable and M4(3) wheelchair user dwellings that are representative of the whole development in dwelling capacity and geographical location this problem will only worsen for what is already known to be an ageing borough population. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7520

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Strachan

I&O_8000
Developments should be sympathetic to existing communities and be in character with the area with reasonable buffer zones and green spaces

Comment

Representation ID: 7946

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8435
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 8159

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8648
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 8344

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8833
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 8428

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Wain Estates (Land) Limited

HO1
I&O_8919
Wain Estates is generally supportive of a policy to provide direction to developers on the required mix of housetypes, sizes and tenures required to meet the identified needs of the local area. It is important that the policy is justified to reflect the evidence of the Housing Needs Assessment but also provides flexibility within the suggested mix, potentially through a percentage scale. Wain Estates request that the policy wording includes flexibility to propose alternative tenure splits where it can be justified by local needs, so that site specific factors can be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 8567

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9058
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 8755

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (North West) Ltd and Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9248
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 8905

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9398
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9037

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9530
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9097

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Northstone

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9590
It is key to combine the existing approach based on up-to-date evidence alongside market knowledge to deliver the best opportunities for housing mix. Policies for older persons and specialist housing, including the optional technical housing standards, should be based on evidence of need and tested for viability. Opportunities for sites for older persons housing / specialist housing could be identified in masterplans for strategic sites but there must be a mechanism to allow for alternative development where demand is not expressed. Site allocations should satisfy criteria such as proximity of sites to public transport, local services and facilities, health services and town centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 9165

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9658
It is agreed that new development should be based on the most up-to date housing needs evidence, this being the Housing Needs Assessment to be prepared or any later version. The policy should also enable flexibility where local evidence and market knowledge demonstrates an alternative mix/type requirement. Policies for older persons and specialist housing, including the optional technical housing standards, should be based on evidence of need and tested for viability. Through including such wording, the policy is able to adapt to changing housing needs and further ensure the correct housing mix and type is applied to new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 9297

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9791
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9358

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashall Land

Agent: Marrons

I&O_9852
Government’s housing delivery target for CW&C is a minimum 1,914 dpa, equating to 28,710 new homes over the proposed 15-year period of the new Local Plan. The details of this policy will heavily depend on the outcomes of the Housing Need Assessment, which is yet to be prepared, but will provide the basis for delivering the mix of homes required and the requirement for affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 9536

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10031
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9643

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10139
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9752

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10248
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9874

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10371
No Specialist Extra Care almost always needs to be freestanding as it is supported by care support services that a standard housing estate cannot possibly viably entertain / deliver. To also suggest that out of settlement proposals will be resisted suggests that settlement boundaries will be introduced (this would be welcomed) however, given that none of the settlements have internal capacity (brownfield of infill sites) large enough to accommodate an extra care housing scheme on this suggest that the default decision would be to refuse permission – this cannot be accepted since there is an overriding need for this type of accommodation and that the Authority must recognise that provision may indeed need to be located in rural areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 9989

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd (North West)

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10486
The Issues and Options draft document states that the new policy approach will provide detailed requirements for various types and proportions of housing. It is important that the New Local Plan is not overly restrictive as it must allow flexibility to enable sites to come forward that can deliver a range of house sizes in different proportions that reflect both need and market demand. Until the Housing Needs Assessment is updated, comments cannot be made in relation to the housing mix policy details. In terms of specialist and accessible housing (M4(2) / M4(3) the proportion of homes that meet these standards should reflect the evidence. This is not likely to require that all homes meet these standards as a blanket requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 10186

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Northern Trust Land Limited

Agent: Savills (UK) Limited

I&O_10683
The Issues and Options draft document states that the new policy approach will provide detailed requirements for various types and proportions of housing. It is important that the New Local Plan is not overly restrictive as it must allow flexibility to enable sites to come forward that can deliver a range of house sizes in different proportions that reflect both need and market demand. Until the Housing Needs Assessment is updated, comments cannot be made in relation to the housing mix policy details. In terms of specialist and accessible housing (M4(2) / M4(3) the proportion of homes that meet these standards should reflect the evidence. This is not likely to require that all homes meet these standards as a blanket requirement.

Comment

Representation ID: 10662

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11160
Government’s housing delivery target for CW&C is a minimum 1,914 dpa, equating to 28,710 new homes over the proposed 15-year period of the new Local Plan. The details of this policy will heavily depend on the outcomes of the Housing Need Assessment, which is yet to be prepared, but will provide the basis for delivering the mix of homes required and the requirement for affordable housing. However, the Council have made clear their intention to have a more comprehensive approach to residential mix for both market and affordable housing in the new Local Plan, set out in the detailed requirements of policy HO 1. We support this approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 10803

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11301
Hayfield Homes broadly supports the suggested policy approach towards housing mix and type of housing as set out within HO 1 yet believe this could be strengthened to allow for greater flexibility on a site-by-site basis, particularly in strategic or edge-of-settlement locations that could accommodate a broader range of uses. In this context, Land off Church Street represents a credible opportunity for sustainable residential development, including specialist or supported housing. The site is located on the edge of the existing settlement boundary and is adjacent to established employment uses. Its proximity to Northwich and local services, transport connections, and retail facilities enhances its suitability for a broader housing mix, particularly for older people or those needing access to services without reliance on the car. We recommend that Policy HO 1 be amended to explicitly acknowledge that specialist and mixed-tenure housing opportunities may also be appropriately located on sustainable edge-of-settlement sites. This would help ensure the policy remains responsive to local context and land availability and supports inclusive, place-based growth. Such flexibility would align with the NPPF’s objectives around meeting diverse housing needs, making effective use of land, and planning positively for mixed-use developments that create healthy, inclusive, and vibrant communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 10898

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11396
Our client is broadly supportive of the policy approach outlined as it seems sensible and is reflective of typical policies of this type and national guidance. However, it may be that  some of this could be tied more specifically to the spatial strategy for the key settlement areas, as there may well be differing requirements for different settlements. This might be particularly the case for elderly persons or specialist housing where specific locations could be appropriate as part of the mix. The client recognises that sites with good access to shops, services and public transport would be more appropriate for including these in a mix.