Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11645

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12143
No

Comment

Representation ID: 11646

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12144
Yes. We support for example the inclusion of contributions towards educational needs and also greater protections for rural community infrastructure e.g. village halls and community centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 11647

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12145
No. There may be situations for example in smaller rural communities where most individual development proposals are of a smaller scale but where there is a cumulative need to fund associated infrastructure needs e.g. school places.

Comment

Representation ID: 11648

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12146
Yes, to a degree which is proportional to the scale and requirements generated by the development.

Comment

Representation ID: 11649

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12147
There is no easy answer to this. The policy should recognise however that local infrastructure priorities will vary from settlement to settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 11650

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12148
No, the policy should be more supportive of proposals to redevelop disused employment land for housing. Former industrial sites can form a valuable source of brownfield land to help meet housing needs, which can thereby help reduce pressure for housing in the countryside. The 4 bullet points under the heading “protection of employment land and premises” should therefore be redrafted to follow a more balanced approach, in which the relative benefits of bringing a site forward for housing can be weighed against those of keeping it for employment use. The last of the 4 bullets in particular seems to set a stricter test for redevelopment proposals than is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (para. 127).

Comment

Representation ID: 11651

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12149
We do not support the proposals relating to Gadbrook Business Park. See our comments on Q NO2.

Comment

Representation ID: 11652

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12150
We do not object to existing employment areas being designated, so long as there is sufficient flexibility over proposals for redevelopment where appropriate for housing – see our comments on Q EG1.

Comment

Representation ID: 11653

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12151
Offices should preferably be located in town centres where they can be accessed by a choice of sustainable transport and contribute to town centre vitality. We do not support safeguarding of out-of-town offices as a more flexible approach should be followed, allowing redevelopment for other uses e.g. housing where this brings greater planning benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 11654

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12152
No – see our comments in relation to Q EG1.