Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11714

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12212
Yes. Policy GBC 3 at present lists a very selective range of areas as key settlement gaps. It is likely that other areas would also benefit from this designation eg between Moulton and Winsford or Winsford and Middlewich. Key settlement gaps within the Green Belt should also be identified. This is particularly important given the role of settlement gap policy in the context of the Government’s policy on grey belt. Whilst CPRE Cheshire fundamentally disagrees with Government policy towards “grey belt”, having clearly defined strategic gaps between towns (for the purpose of applying paragraph 143b) and other relevant parts of the NPPF) may go some way to limiting the damage caused. A further important point is that Green Belt policy (paragraph 143b of the NPPF) only relates to gaps between “towns”. There are likely to be parts of the Borough’s Green Belt which separate smaller settlements from each other, or which separate a town from a smaller settlement, where it is nevertheless important to maintain separation from a landscape/townscape point of view. The policy should make it clear that cumulative effects of smaller scale developments (which do not individually close or fill a gap) will also be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 11716

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12214
CPRE Cheshire was disappointed to learn in summer 2025 that Natural England has decided to pause work on the potential National Landscape designation. Whilst this decision is regrettable the policy approach needs to be updated to reflect this reality.

Comment

Representation ID: 11718

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12216
Yes. We strongly support the retention of ASCVs as set out in LA2. The decision to pause work on the National Landscape designation means that it is even more important that effective local designations are in place, covering both the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge and other areas of landscape value.

Comment

Representation ID: 11719

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12217
Only if there is clear evidence e.g. in a recent landscape character appraisal to justify this.

Comment

Representation ID: 11723

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12221
Yes we broadly support the approach. We strongly support the references to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and the need to protect and enhance green infrastructure e.g. trees, hedgerows, peatland, greenspaces etc. The policy should make it clear that proposals leading to the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land will not be permitted where areas of lower grade land are available, either on a single site or split into smaller sites. Even then any planning benefits from the proposal would need to be weighed against the harm resulting from the loss of the farmland. Any areas which are marked as grade 1, 2 or 3 farm land 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: 11724

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12222
Yes. However, the 2.1 ratio is too low given the risks of planting failure. How could replacing a mature tree with 2 saplings possibly replace the biodiversity that has been destroyed? The impact on nature, climate cooling and pollinators should be assessed in every case and the right level of mitigation applied. It can take 20 years for a tree to grow to the point of sequestering carbon to any extent. We therefore suggest mitigation with appropriate new trees and/or areas of woodland for the size of the development and a truly independent ecological assessment.

Comment

Representation ID: 11726

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12224
Yes, although viability evidence may be needed and any resultant benefits balanced against any planning harms e.g. to the delivery of affordable housing contributions.

Comment

Representation ID: 11727

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12225
By ensuring development is consistent with the objectives of the Mersey Forest Plan, protecting existing tree coverage and requiring new and/or replacement planting.

Comment

Representation ID: 11728

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12226
Yes.

Comment

Representation ID: 11729

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12227
Yes.