Comment

Representation ID: 3363

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Community Action

I&O_3537
2. Community-led housing The consultation asks whether a specific policy for community-led housing is needed and notes that any policy should not allow schemes larger than national size limits and that community-led homes will not be appropriate in all settlements. Evidence from the affordable housing needs surveys demonstrate that communities favour small, design-led schemes with Local Connection emphasis and are sensitive to traffic, parking, landscape and Green Belt impacts. Respondents also express a preference for energy-efficient, accessible homes located within easy reach of shops, health services and bus routes. These findings strengthen the case for community-led models, which allow local residents to shape design, tenure and allocations and help ensure new housing meets local needs. CCA therefore strongly supports a dedicated community-led housing policy. Community land trusts, co-operatives and self-build groups can deliver affordable homes that remain in community ownership and help younger residents stay in their villages. We recommend that: The Local Plan actively supports community-led housing in both small and larger villages, not only in ‘remote’ settlements. Flexibility on scheme size will be important; some parishes may need schemes larger than the one-hectare national limit to meet local demand. The policy should set out how the Council will work with community organisations to identify sites (including the use of Rural Exception Sites) and provide technical assistance. Community-led housing should count towards meeting local affordable housing targets and be exempt from standard developer contributions where they demonstrably meet a local need. Design quality, sustainability and Local Connection. The policy must ensure that community-led schemes are design-led and energy-efficient, incorporating accessible layouts, low-carbon materials and good links to local services. Design codes should manage traffic and parking impacts and safeguard landscapes and Green Belt settings, while Local Connection criteria will ensure that homes go to people with a demonstrable link to the parish. Summary Community-led housing warrants a supportive policy that enables community groups to deliver affordable homes at a scale that meets local needs. Surveys indicate that communities favour small, design-led schemes with Local Connection emphasis, and they want energy-efficient, accessible homes within walking distance of shops, health services and bus routes. A dedicated policy should therefore promote community land trusts, co-operatives and self-build groups, require robust design codes that manage traffic and parking impacts and embrace high energy performance, and ensure that community-led schemes count towards local affordable housing targets.

Comment

Representation ID: 3742

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3924
Maximum size should not be increased Houses should be of the specific size and number of bedrooms CW&C specify and include single story dwellings / apartments as required

Comment

Representation ID: 4591

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4877
Little Leigh Parish Council has no comments here.

Comment

Representation ID: 4810

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5160
Economically viable size for local planning is important when defining size.

Comment

Representation ID: 5523

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5895
f introduced, it should: Be small-scale. Meet local housing needs only . Not exceed national guidance size limits. Prioritise brownfield and sites close to existing facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6539

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6956
19 | HO14   If a policy for community-led housing is required, what should it include, and do you agree that the Local Plan should not increase the maximum size limit for these developments as set out in national guidance?   Yes – a specific policy is required. Community-led housing (CLH) has strong potential to meet unmet local needs, but only if properly safeguarded.   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base FNHP (H1–H2) stresses that housing must be small-scale, affordable, and community-led. Community-led schemes could help meet local need without speculative sprawl, but must respect settlement character and protect key landscapes.   🌳 Hob Hey Wood Ancient Woodland Considerations Community-led schemes must not be permitted on or adjacent to sensitive habitats like Hob Hey Wood or other biodiversity corridors. CLH should be in-town or on brownfield land only.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour’s 2024 manifesto and HOPE for Frodsham emphasise empowering communities, supporting co-operative and community-led housing, and ensuring affordability in perpetuity. CLH aligns with Labour’s commitment to democratic planning and strong local voices.   🧠 Wider Knowledge Gallent (Whose Housing Crisis?) – stresses that community-led models can restore trust and legitimacy in planning by giving residents direct control. Colenutt (Property Lobby) – warns of developer capture; CLH can counterbalance by locking in community benefit. Eaqub (Generation Rent) – housing must be built for need, not speculation. CLH does this if tenure is secure and affordable. Bourland (Gray to Green Communities) – CLH can integrate climate-friendly design and community resilience.   📌 Important Considerations   Community control: Developments must be owned, managed, or stewarded by a community body (e.g. CLT, co-op, co-housing group). Local connection tests: Prioritise residents with strong ties (e.g. 5+ years residency, family, or employment links). Affordability in perpetuity: Homes must remain affordable through legal agreements (e.g. CLT lease, Section 106). Scale limits: Must not exceed national guidance (≤1 ha or ≤5% of settlement size) – appropriate for small, proportional schemes. Location: Only on sustainable sites – within or adjoining settlements, not in open countryside or sensitive habitats. Tenure mix: Majority social rent or affordable rent, with limited scope for shared ownership or market cross-subsidy if essential to viability. Design standards: Should reflect local design codes (FNHP HCH1–HCH5), sustainability standards, and climate resilience.

Comment

Representation ID: 6811

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7243
Yes – a policy is needed to support small-scale, community-led schemes where: - Local need is evidenced by Parish Councils or equivalent local body. - Sites are proportionate, adjacent to settlements, and not in sensitive designations. - Affordability is secured in perpetuity. The national size limits should not be exceeded – as surely this would impact affordability?

Comment

Representation ID: 7955

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8444
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 8165

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8654
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 8354

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8843
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 8581

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9072
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 8761

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9254
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 8912

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9405
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9043

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9536
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9303

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9797
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9541

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10036
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9649

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10145
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9758

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10255
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 9879

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10376
NPPF73 suggests a 1.0 ha threshold or 5% of settlement size. The Policy should allow the site threshold to be meaningful so as to deliver not just housing, but community betterment and infrastructure and increasing the threshold is one way of doing this. It should enable the provision for open market housing elements to subsidise the delivery of social tenures, community benefit and infrastructure – as advocated and recognised by NPPF82.

Comment

Representation ID: 11001

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11499
Yes, the size limit should remain.

Comment

Representation ID: 11366

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11864
Town and Parish Councils need to have an equal say in the size, location and design of community led housing schemes

Comment

Representation ID: 11680

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12178
No comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 14295

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14839
Town and Parish Councils need to have an equal say in the size, location and design of community led housing schemes

Comment

Representation ID: 15645

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16204
No comments at this stage.