Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11625

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12123
No

Comment

Representation ID: 11626

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12124
Regenerating the town centre core of Winsford should be central to the policy for Winsford.

Comment

Representation ID: 11627

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12125
No comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 11628

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12126
We have concerns about the continued growth of road-based logistics in the additional growth areas around the east and north of Winsford Industrial estate. Any growth in road-based logistics must be kept to a minimum in the interests of reducing road movements and carbon emissions and based on regional and sub-regional needs assessments taking account for example of the scope for demand management and modal shift to rail based movement.

Comment

Representation ID: 11629

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12127
We support the identification of Frodsham as a market town in the settlement hierarchy and the need to protect the appearance, setting and character of the Frodsham Hills Area of Special County Value. Any proposals for Green Belt release should be resisted in line with our earlier comments about the Spatial Strategy. The reference to protecting the nearby habitats sites alongside the Mersey should be strengthened to reflect their international importance and the need to protect important supporting habitat in nearby areas e.g. feeding areas for wintering birds.

Comment

Representation ID: 11630

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12128
We support the identification of Neston and Parkgate as a market town in the settlement hierarchy and the need to protect the appearance, setting and character of the Dee Coastal Area of Special County Value. Any proposals for Green Belt release should be resisted in line with our earlier comments about the Spatial Strategy. The reference to protecting the nearby habitats sites alongside the Mersey and Dee should be strengthened to reflect their international importance and the need to protect important supporting habitat in nearby areas e.g. feeding areas for wintering birds.

Comment

Representation ID: 11631

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12129
The policy for Leahurst should ensure that development does not harm the openness and purposes of the surrounding Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 11632

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12130
It needs to be clearer what is meant by “pragmatic approach” to meeting development needs. Given the cross-boundary issues identified, any proposals for future development affecting Middlewich must be informed by wholistic evidence spanning the 2 authority areas. In future, the anticipated Cheshire and Warrington Mayoral authority will also play a role in addressing cross boundary issues such as this.

Comment

Representation ID: 11633

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12131
See our answer to Q MI2 above.

Comment

Representation ID: 11634

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12132
Through cooperation between the 2 authorities, for example on relevant evidence base.