Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)

Comment

Representation ID: 6924

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7392
LSH believe the list should be extended to include The Housing Needs Assessment should also includes sections on the role of PBSA BTR Hotel Needs Assessment Employment Needs Assessment, including office/shared workspace Strategic Heritage Assessment Possible Urban Capacity Study to examine settlement capacity for new homes

Comment

Representation ID: 6926

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7394
We believe that the plan should cover the period to 2040 as a minimum.

Comment

Representation ID: 6929

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7397
There is no mention of economic prosperity or employment related matters in the vision. Not mention of delivery of new homes (acute housing crisis and under delivery in CW&C and increased housing numbers from standard method. The vision does not discuss growth or development in a positive way, but instead reads very protectionist/conservation led approach. Agree that Chester and Frodsham are the key larger settlements and should be the focus on future growth as the existing infrastructure is available in both settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6930

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7398
As above some clear attainable targets and principles should sit behind the vision.  For example, what will CWAC be like in 2040? At the moment that is not clear, but will naturally evolve through the spatial strategy.  This could also tie in wider UK Objectives/UN Sustainable Development Goals to make sure any targets are measurable (annually) across the plan period

Comment

Representation ID: 6932

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7400
Option A is preferred approach * *with some likely changes and amendments to reflect changes in legislation

Comment

Representation ID: 6934

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7402
No, we believe Option A forms a robust baseline, given it was found sound in 2015.  However, in ten years there has been other statutory and non-statutory changes to planning legislation, that warrants a comprehensive review of the objectives that will reflect the 2025 to 2040 period.

Comment

Representation ID: 6936

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7404
Yes, they each need to be reviewed comprehensively and to be evaluated in their effectiveness since 2015.  We also recommend that these are reviewed against other UK Government Commitments and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), to align with wider  ambitions.

Comment

Representation ID: 6937

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7405
No, the objectives seek extremely environmentally focused and some of these can be dealt with specific policies for each of the subject topics. Some of these objectives would be better realigned into the current Local Plan objectives.  There is a significant danger or over regulation and inconsistency, which will undermine effective decision making .  Many of these sustainable objectives could be integrated or re-aligned into the Environmental Objectives  (SO11-SO16) 

Comment

Representation ID: 6939

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7407
Agreed. ADD Encourage more development within existing settlements and around rail, and bus station and key transit corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 6940

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7408
No, this is a minimum, there should also be more emphasis or encouragement to go beyond this target.