Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11503

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12001
Yes, there is. Even prior to Covid, there was a continuing rise in the amount of home working. During the pandemic, almost half of working adults (49%) reported having worked from home at some point. Since the lockdowns, percentages have fallen, but they are still high and – it is generally acknowledged – likely to remain so. According to the Office for National Statistics, more than a quarter of working adults in Great Britain (28%) were hybrid working between January and March 20252. Clearly, it is totally inappropriate to continue to plan for previous percentages of land to be allocated for employment. Not only that, there are many under-used existing employment sites that could be partially or wholly turned over to housing or other uses. 2 https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/whohasaccesstohybridworkingreatbritain/2025-06-11

Comment

Representation ID: 11504

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12002
CPRE can support this policy with the exception of the last two paragraphs. National policies are already placing huge pressures on Green Belt and other countryside areas. There is no need to repeat them here as it will merely encourage more developer pressure to build on such areas. The last sentence should be dropped.

Comment

Representation ID: 11505

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12003
We do agree with this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 11506

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12004
It would be not only inappropriate but reckless to make a blanket policy along these lines. We would not support it. Suitable/sustainable development sites must be identified on an individual basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 11507

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12005
It would be helpful if they did, but they should be based on local community priorities.

Comment

Representation ID: 11508

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12006
Yes, we agree.

Comment

Representation ID: 11509

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12007
As planners at CW&C will be only too well aware, the government has introduced – through its more recent planning reforms – a new standard method for calculating housing need and the concept of ‘Grey Belt’. We have already set out in response to earlier questions the deeply flawed nature of the standard method (QSS1) and the need to fully update the Council’s brownfield register. We do not consider that the case for Green Belt release has been demonstrated. According to the current NPPF’s definition, any Green Belt site, including previously developed or brownfield land, could be reclassified as Grey Belt, provided it can be shown to ‘not strongly contribute’ to three of the five Green Belt purposes. But, there are exceptions. These include sites with irreplaceable habitats or which are at risk of flooding. We have flagged up in our response to question Q. SS 1 the growing issue of flood risk in the Borough. This also needs to be taken into account in any decisions about reclassification of land to Grey Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 11510

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12008
Yes. The Council should be doing all it can to relieve the pressure on Green Belt, including tackling the number of empty homes and bringing forward brownfield land. According to government statistics, updated in March this year, Cheshire West and Chester had 2,510 empty homes in 2024 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/council-taxbase-2024-in-england) and, according to Action on Empty Homes, the number of long term empty homes in the borough is rising – up by 96 to 1,480 in 2024 from 1,384 in 2023 (https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/facts-and-figures). Also, CPRE research conducted in 2022 showed that there is space in England for 1.2 million homes on previously developed land (https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/state-of-brownfield-report-2022/). It is absolutely essential, therefore, that CW&C updates its brownfield register and that it carries out master planning exercises in all settlements of any size.

Comment

Representation ID: 11511

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12009
Of the options presented we favour Option A - Retain the Green Belt. However, we have concerns even about this option due to its reliance on the flawed standard method for calculating housing need, and the resultant risk that further harmful development would occur in other important countryside areas which are not protected as Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11512

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12010
Cheshire West and Chester has a significant border with Liverpool City Region. It should explore whether that region can accept any of its housing allocation – in addition to lobbying the government to reduce its housing figures. See our response to Q. SS 1.