Comment

Representation ID: 1170

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1275
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1553

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Clough

I&O_1661
Housing developers need to ensure appropriate play areas are installed. And the council needs to check they have done what they pledged to do. For example the new housing development where Hartford high school used to be, the developer created a playground full of large rocks - not in any way safe or appropriate for children to play around. They have agreed to remove the rocks after protests from residents but don't appear to be replacing them with play equipment. It's appalling. Where is the council in this situation, making sure that what is agreed in plans is actually in place? 

Comment

Representation ID: 1649

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Roberta Pomponio

I&O_1759
Agree, but the policy should explicitly: Resist conversion to residential use unless fully justified under the “loss” tests. Support co-location of services to improve viability without reducing access. Include digital and flexible space provision to adapt to evolving community needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 1654

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: NHS Cheshire and Merseyside Integrated Care Board

Agent: NHS Property Services Ltd

I&O_1764
Community Facilities We acknowledge that paragraph 22.7 sets out that the proposed policy approach will continue to support the development of new community facilities and protect the loss of existing facilities, unless demonstrated that it is surplus or not capable of continued use by retaining, and updating where necessary, the content of the existing Local Plan (Part Two) Policy DM 39. In referring back to existing Policy DM 39, we note that this sets out several criteria, which could limit the redevelopment potential of a site. It is important to note that policies aimed at preventing the loss or change of use of community facilities and assets can potentially have a harmful impact on the NHS’s ability to ensure the delivery of essential facilities and services for the community. The NHS requires flexibility with regards to the use of its estate to deliver its core objective of enabling excellent patient care and support key healthcare strategies such as the NHS Long Term Plan. In particular, the disposal of sites and properties which are redundant or no longer suitable for healthcare for best value (open market value) is a critical component in helping to fund new or improved services within a local area. Requiring NHS disposal sites to explore the potential for alternative community uses and/or to retain a substantial proportion of community facility provision adds unjustified delay to vital reinvestment in facilities and services for the community. All NHS land disposals must follow a rigorous process to ensure that levels of healthcare service provision in the locality of disposals are maintained or enhanced, and proceeds from land sales are re-invested in the provision of healthcare services locally and nationally. The decision about whether a property is surplus to NHS requirements is made by local health commissioners and NHS England. Sites can only be disposed of once the operational health requirement has ceased. This does not mean that the healthcare services are no longer needed in the area, rather it means that there are alternative provisions that are being invested in to modernise services. Where it can be demonstrated that health facilities are surplus to requirements or will be changed as part of wider NHS estate reorganisation and service transformation programmes, it should be accepted that a facility is neither needed nor viable for its current use, and policies within the Local Plan should support the principle of alternative uses for NHS sites with no requirement for retention of a community facility use on the land or submission of onerous information. To ensure the Plan is positively prepared and effective, we are seeking the following modification ( shown in italics below ) if carrying over existing Policy DM 39 to the new Community Facilities policy to ensure the principle of alternative uses for NHS land and property will be fully supported: Proposed amendment to existing Policy DM 39(N.B. if the existing criteria is carried forward into the new Local Plan in relation to Community Facilities): “Where healthcare facilities are formally declared surplus to the operational healthcare requirements of the NHS or identified as surplus as part of a published estates strategy or service transformation plan, the requirements listed under Part XXXX of the Policy will not apply.”

Comment

Representation ID: 2145

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2265
Agree.

Comment

Representation ID: 3110

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3284
National Highways have no further comment on this aspect of the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 3767

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3949
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 4333

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Parkgate Society

I&O_4562
we agree

Comment

Representation ID: 4392

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Enevoldson

I&O_4621
I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 4679

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4981
OS 5 It is vital that cultural facilities are maintained in order to encourage the future development of young people, and enable older residents to meet, socialise and avoid isolation. Some of our cultural buildings are in need of repair or replacement, which should be part of the developers' responsibility in larger developments. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4841

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heat Pumps and Engineering Directors' Pension Fund

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5191
The proposed policy approach to protecting and enhancing cultural and community facilities is strongly supported, as these assets are essential to the long-term vibrancy and inclusivity of local communities. The policy should go further by encouraging the proactive delivery of new or enhanced facilities as part of major developments, secured through developer contributions where appropriate. In addition, promoting the flexible and multi-use operation of existing facilities will allow them to respond more effectively to evolving community needs, helping to improve social resilience. Ongoing engagement with local stakeholders and community organisations will be key to ensuring the policy remains responsive and effective. Facilities such as the local village halls, libraries, and sports clubs are vital to Cuddington’s community fabric and should be safeguarded and enhanced, with new development helping to support these through appropriate contributions and design.

Comment

Representation ID: 5372

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Frostick

I&O_5743
OS 5: We agree.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5601

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5973
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5784

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6156
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 6382

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Diocese of Chester

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_6795
The proposed policy approach to protecting and enhancing cultural and community facilities is strongly supported, as these assets are essential to the long-term vibrancy and inclusivity of local communities. The policy should go further by encouraging the proactive delivery of new or enhanced facilities as part of major developments, secured through developer contributions where appropriate. In addition, promoting the flexible and multi-use operation of existing facilities will allow them to respond more effectively to evolving community needs, helping to improve social resilience. Ongoing engagement with local stakeholders and community organisations will be key to ensuring the policy remains responsive and effective.

Comment

Representation ID: 6631

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_7051
22 | OS5   Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards cultural and community facilities, as set out in OS2? If not, how could it be amended?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base   FNHP identifies Castle Park Arts Centre, community halls, playing fields, and clubs as central to civic identity. It stresses that facilities are not just “nice to have” but essential infrastructure.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood   Though not a cultural facility in the narrow sense, Hob Hey Wood functions as community space for walking, volunteering, education and heritage. Policies should treat access to such natural/cultural landscapes as equivalent to built community assets.   🌹 Labour Perspective   HOPE for Frodsham commits to protecting libraries, youth services, and cultural hubs in perpetuity. National Labour manifesto prioritises community hubs, investment in youth and arts, and ensuring cultural life thrives in every town. LSE commentary on planning reform stresses resisting speculative redevelopment of community land.   🧠 Wider Context   Colenutt (The Property Lobby) warns of developer pressure to convert community sites into housing. Gallent (Whose Housing Crisis?) emphasises social infrastructure as critical to long-term resilience. Cultural Planning Toolkit (2025) shows best practice: protect community/cultural assets unless a demonstrably better replacement is delivered locally; require Cultural Wellbeing Action Plans for major developments; apply the agent of change principle to protect venues from incompatible new neighbours; promote multi-functional hubs and meanwhile uses. TCPA “Planning for Culture” guide reinforces that cultural wellbeing is a core planning principle and must be embedded into Local Plans from the start.   📌 Important Consideration s Yes – but OS2 needs strengthening. Loss of facilities should only be permitted where a better replacement is provided within the same community, not just elsewhere. All major residential and mixed-use schemes must provide or contribute to new cultural/community space (youth centres, halls, cultural hubs). Community Use Agreements for schools, leisure centres and sports facilities must be mandatory. Apply the agent of change principle to protect existing venues from noise/conflict with new development. Require Cultural Wellbeing Action Plans for major schemes, co-designed with the community. Recognise natural cultural assets (woodland, landscapes, parks) as part of the cultural/community fabric.

Comment

Representation ID: 6824

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Theatres Trust

Question OS 5
I&O_7260
We are supportive of the council's approach to supporting and retaining valued facilities in line with existing policy and paragraph 98 of the NPPF. To enhance robustness and effectiveness we suggest some enhancement or additional detail, particularly with regards to setting expectations of what evidence is required to demonstate redundancy. We recommend this includes proper marketing over a period of 18-24 months at a value appropriate to existing use (without development potential) and condition through recognised local and national agents relevant to the use. It should be demonstrated that the facility cannot be successful under alternative models of operation, for example community ownership.  

Comment

Representation ID: 6861

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_7297
Support the suggested approach, but recommend the following amendments: - Strengthen safeguards against the loss of valued facilities, requiring robust evidence of lack of need. - Require replacement facilities to be operational before loss is permitted. - Support multifunctional community hubs that combine cultural, health, education, and recreation uses to maximise accessibility. - Embed community use agreements for schools and other facilities as a mandatory requirement, not optional guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 6981

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Community Action

I&O_7449
Regardless of which spatial option is chosen, the Local Plan should be underpinned by a borough-wide Community Asset Audit to map gaps and over-provision before allocating growth. If Green Belt release (Option B) or new settlements along sustainable transport corridors (Option C) are pursued, on-site community buildings must be mandated so that loss of open land is offset by new social value. New settlements along transport corridors must include rail-adjacent community hubs that are secure, visible and accessible on foot or bicycle.

Comment

Representation ID: 7007

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire West Voluntary Action

I&O_7475
Regardless of which spatial option is chosen, the Local Plan should be underpinned by a borough-wide Community Asset Audit to map gaps and over-provision before allocating growth. If Green Belt release (Option B) or new settlements along sustainable transport corridors (Option C) are pursued, on-site community buildings must be mandated so that loss of open land is offset by new social value. New settlements along transport corridors must include rail-adjacent community hubs that are secure, visible and accessible on foot or bicycle.

Comment

Representation ID: 7642

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Edwina Crook

I&O_8129
I agree with the positions outlined in the Parkgate Society’s response, especially on open space provision, water infrastructure, and green infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 10039

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Horizon Cremation (Hooton) Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_10536
Horizon supports the inclusion and reference to the need to support proposals for new community facilities and cultural or local services that serve the local community. The Council should actively support planning applications that come forward to provide facilities that meet a demonstrated need. One such facility is crematoria, for which there is a demonstrated need in the Hooton area. As set out earlier in these representations, Land off Hooton Road, Hooton is ideally situated to accommodate this need.

Comment

Representation ID: 10585

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Damon Leonard

I&O_11083
yes

Comment

Representation ID: 10671

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11169
Yes, agree. Development offering community and cultural facilities, including sports and recreation, should be supported and the improved access for the local community and schools should be weighed favourably. Our client’s site is a great example of proposed development which provides the opportunity for improved sports and leisure facilities, which would crucially address the identified need in the local community.

Comment

Representation ID: 11012

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11510
The following wording should be removed- “where there is a surplus; the facility is no longer capable for use; “

Comment

Representation ID: 11022

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11520
Council agrees with the suggested policy approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 11388

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11886
No, cultural and community facilities should be retained and developed. Town or Parish Council should lead on it

Comment

Representation ID: 11707

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12205
Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 11945

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tarporley Parish Council

I&O_12459
Tarporley Parish Council agrees with this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 14316

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14860
No, cultural and community facilities should be retained and developed. Town or Parish Council should lead on it