Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11584

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12082
Mouldsworth station is in Green Belt. The area around it should not be built up.

Comment

Representation ID: 11585

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12083
Green Belt should not be built on.

Comment

Representation ID: 11586

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12084
Green Belt. Any areas which are marked as grade 2 or 3 farmland on the Natural England map (and which therefore may be BMV – see our response to SS20) should be subject to detailed site survey (i.e. not just desk-based) carried out in accordance with Natural England guidance to inform any decisions about future development.

Comment

Representation ID: 11587

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12085
CPRE opposed the allocation of Chester Business Park and opposed its extension – because of its Green Belt setting outside of the city confines. That point made, the business park exists and therefore the site needs to be made best use of. Part of it could potentially be re-allocated for other purposes. We also agree with the suggestion that part of Chester Business Quarter could/should be allocated for apartment accommodation. It would be an excellent way of fulfilling housing targets. We do not support the suggestion of a fifth park and ride site – at Hoole or anywhere else. There are many negative aspects from P & R schemes including the fact that they can create extra traffic movements. People living between them and town/city centres often drive out to the sites to obtain free parking and take advantage of free or cheap trips into the urban centres. It is also not uncommon for motorists to drive around from one site to another if the first one or two they encounter are full. In addition, the P and R sites often lead to the diminution of commercial bus services which cannot compete with the free or cheap services that run regularly between the sites and the city centres. Meanwhile there are further impacts on local air quality, soils (from run-off), character and landscape (more often than not, P & Rs are constructed on green spaces/ Green Belt). Park-and-ride is far from the solution to town centre congestion it was originally claimed to be. It is far more environmentally friendly to have universal good quality public transport services that encourage people to do their whole journey without using private cars, not just the last few miles. We also do not support “a relief road for the west of the city” (page 84, second bullet on the page), an idea which has been mooted for a long time. Quite apart from the fact that providing more road space merely encourages more trips by car and only provides short term relief, in this case it would involve constructing a new bridge over the Dee and building on a flood plain. It would also involve taking yet more Green Belt. It makes little sense to focus effort and spending in this direction rather than on providing reliable low-carbon public transport and high-quality active travel networks when there is such a desperate need to tackle the climate crisis.

Comment

Representation ID: 11599

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12097
We approve of the Chester City Gateway plan. There does not appear to be a detailed plan yet for the Dale Barracks site but we would approve, in principle, the idea of it being used primarily for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 11600

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12098
We can wholeheartedly endorse the promise in the Foreword to the One City Plan by the leader of CW&C, to “ use the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals ”. We also note that, when the plan was revised following extensive consultations “ Sustainability emerged as an overarching theme ” and we welcome the resulting commitment for the Council to prioritise the three pillars of sustainability. Also, as we subscribe to the aims of the Smart Growth Coalition, which include focusing development on urban areas, we can endorse the Council’s promise to continue to invest in regeneration schemes. The Chester Gateway Scheme appears to be primarily about regeneration in favour of providing affordable accommodation and sustainable travel options, primarily for younger people. This we can also wholeheartedly support.

Comment

Representation ID: 11601

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12099
We are not in a position to comment knowledgably on this but would hope that where housing allocations are made, attention is given to ensuring the adequate provision for health and educational needs is made as well as sustainable transport options.

Comment

Representation ID: 11602

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12100
CPRE does not advocate substantial parking provision because it encourages the use of the car. We advocate instead a sustainable transport hierarchy. See annex 2 to this submission and our transport policy on the national website: https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/cpre-transport-policy/.

Comment

Representation ID: 11603

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12101
See our detailed answer to Q. SS 3 which charts the rise of home working. The demand for office space is falling. Some of the Chester Business Quarter should be allocated for apartments.

Comment

Representation ID: 11604

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12102
We agree that it would not be sustainable to allow housing on this site because, unless people happened to work on the site, they would have to travel (by car) to work and all would have to travel for all other needs in any event.