Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 11513

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12011
The amount of development that CW&C is being forced to contemplate due to the government’s new housing targets is already too high and brings with it too many environmental implications. As much new development as possible should be carried out as infill and also there needs to be an allowance for windfalls. In addition, as pointed out in response to Q. SS 3, there will be areas currently allocated for employment use (existing and new ones) which could be turned over to housing due to the growth in home working. However, no further development should be allowed within the period of the new Local Plan over and above that which the Council is obliged to accept.

Comment

Representation ID: 11514

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12012
All options offered present difficult choices for different reasons. However, Green Belt principles must prevail if they are to mean anything at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 11515

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12013
N/A

Comment

Representation ID: 11516

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12014
No

Comment

Representation ID: 11517

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12015
This would be our second-choice option because of the amount of Green Belt release that is proposed. But, if this option is chosen, we would again emphasise the need for an updated brownfield register and would ask that new land is designated as Green Belt to compensate for Green Belt lost.

Comment

Representation ID: 11518

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12016
No. This would be the least sustainable option because it would create urban sprawl along transport corridors and it would focus inappropriate development around some rural and semi-rural stations – all of which are in or abut Green Belt. CPRE are well aware the DfT has signalled that development around railway stations is appropriate – and, no doubt, there are many urban locations where it is – but there are numerous rural stations, especially those in Green Belt, where it is not appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 11519

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12017
There is no way this option could be made sustainable. It should not receive further consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 11520

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12018
They are not correct. Whilst we agree with the “showstoppers” which have been identified, we are concerned about the exclusion of Green Belt. ‘Landscapes’ are also not specifically mentioned (other than the Areas of Special County Value, the boundaries of which have yet to be defined in the new Local Plan) and there is an on-going need to review ‘areas of flood risk’ to take account of climate change. Also, we would like there to be a strong presumption against the loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land. The definition of BMV land should use in the first instance Natural England’s ALC map (https://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/144015?category=5954148537204736) but should also include intrusive site investigation for any potentially BMV sites being considered for development, in line with Natural England guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 11521

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12019
An updated brownfield register Green Belt, especially those pockets making a major or significant contribution to GB purposes Areas of Special County Value Natural England’s NW Region agricultural land classification map (referenced in response to Q. SS 20) supported where necessary by on-site investigation. Important historic & landscape features, trails & woodlands (Cheshire has less than 5% of tree cover) Flood risk zones Areas with poor air quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 11522

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12020
CPRE urge the Council to produce master plans for all the significant settlements and to give Green Belt the status it deserves. See our response to Q. SS 20. However, if the Council does proceed with declassifying any Green Belt, it should newly classify the same area of land as Green Belt elsewhere.