Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11635

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12133
Only if justified by relevant evidence.

Comment

Representation ID: 11636

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12134
We have concerns about the sites suggested which would encroach onto countryside areas, and in a random and unplanned fashion looking at the range of different sites put forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 11637

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12135
As set out in our response to Q SS11, our favoured strategic option is option A to “retain the Green Belt”. However, irrespective of which spatial option is chosen and due in large part to the Government’s flawed standard methodology for calculating housing needs and policies on “grey belt” there is a significant risk that harmful development will nevertheless come forward in both Green Belt and other countryside areas. The policies for protecting the Green Belt and other countryside areas therefore need to be as strong as possible. We strongly agree that “rural character” should be protected for its own sake and there should be a strong link here to the policies on landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 11638

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12136
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is the policy content – see our response to Q GB 1 above.

Comment

Representation ID: 11639

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12137
It is not very clear what other uses the Council has in mind here. If it is to cover for example equestrian uses (currently covered by another policy) or indeed any other forms of development this should be subject to criteria governing the scale and impact on the landscape, light pollution, vehicular traffic generation etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 11640

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12138
This question is not very clear. Redevelopment of existing rural buildings for other uses (eg small scale employment uses) can be appropriate but again this is subject to its visual, noise and other impacts e.g. on the viability of farm holdings.

Comment

Representation ID: 11641

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12139
No comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 11642

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12140
We strongly agree with the need to locate new development where it is accessible by a range of transport modes and support the sustainable transport hierarchy, which is similar to CPRE’s own version – see annex 2 to our comments. The hierarchy in the Plan should however include (at its top) avoiding the need to travel at all for example through improved digital connectivity. In addition, whilst it is fine to say “new development will be encouraged in more sustainable locations” it should be made clearer that development which is not in such locations will be refused. There should be clarity about the criteria that development will be expected to satisfy to meet this requirement e.g. through the setting of maximum safe walking and cycling distances to shops, public transport and other community facilities. We support in principle the safeguarding of disused railway lines, sidings and stations for future transport use and also strongly support the need to extend and improve local footpath and cycle networks, including greenways, canal towpaths and public rights of way. We note that the Council intends to take a “flexible approach” when reviewing its Parking Standards SPD which “adapts to the varying levels of non-car connectivity across the borough”. We are cautious about what this may mean in practice as parking standards need to be carefully calibrated to ensure that they do not encourage or facilitate further car dependency. 

Comment

Representation ID: 11643

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12141
Yes. The approach to transport infrastructure provision should be designed to ensure that there is an on-going shift towards more sustainable forms of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport) in line with CPRE’s transport hierarchy – see annex 2 to these comments. [see attachment page 44]

Comment

Representation ID: 11644

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12142
Yes. The reintroduction of passenger services on the Sandbach Northwich line, all the schemes listed under T3 “railway stations” and T4 “railway corridors” should be retained. The road schemes listed should be dropped unless there is a critical road safety case to be made for them. We support in principle the safeguarding of land for a new station at Gadbrook Park. Whilst we have concerns about the future expansion of employment uses here, a new station would also help provide access to the existing site. CPRE Cheshire also strongly supports the retention and further improvement of the 12 recreational routes listed under DM37 “recreational routeways” (Shropshire Union Canal, Delamere Loop, Sandstone Trail etc.).