Chester: Questions 1 to 7

CH1 – Chester settlement area Question 1 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 23, 47, 157, General support for policy No change to policy required 186, 215, 1271, 658, 1135, 1152, 1356 23 Use alpha / numeric bullet points for ease of use Bullet points have been used in this policy because the criteria are not listed in order of importance, and should be read alongside one another rather than in an order of preference. No change to policy required. 23 The Millennium Greenway should be included as a green corridor Policy has been amended to reference green spaces and corridors more generally. The policies map will identify strategic open spaces which relate to additional policies in the draft plan. 157 Key priorities should be: The key priorities and overarching strategy for development is set • ensuring there is a good integrated transport plan; out in the adopted Local Plan (Part One). • encouraging social mix of affordable housing No change to policy required • protecting heritage • protection and development of waterways • cultural attractions 186 Reference to historic routes and grain needs greater clarity between Bullet point has been amended as suggested, to provide clarity on protection and reinstatement the protection and reinstatement of historic routes and grain. 215 Support the boundary which includes land at Clifton Drive, Chester Comments noted. No change to policy required. 216, 2568 Plan contains no policy relating to allocations / safeguarded land for There are no additional land allocations proposed in the Chester residential development in Chester (mirror policy of CH2 for spatial area as set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper employment). This is needed for clarity and to ensure housing needs of (June 2017). The housing requirement in policy STRAT 3 of the the city can be met. Local Plan (Part One) can be achieved through the delivery of housing commitments and the delivery of the strategic site at Wrexham Road. The background paper provides the evidence CH1 – Chester settlement area Question 1 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response base and justification for not including an additional land allocations policy for Chester. 702, 1956, Insufficient weight is given to the unique natural and historic character The Local Plan (Part Two) should be read alongside the Part One 1965 of Chester. Policy should reiterate phrase used by Inspector in the Local plan, and where possible should not repeat information. Plan (Part One) The importance of Chester’s unique character is also reiterated in policies CH5 to CH7. 1271 Strongly support policy, in particular with regards to development along Comments noted. No change to policy required. inner ring road. 658, 1552 Requirement for Chester Western Relief Road / land should be Comments noted. Policies T1 and T2 of the draft Plan provide safeguarded for the route. further detail in relation to transport proposals in the borough. 820, 1483, Archaeology is a matter of public interest and proposals for buildings Consultation on individual planning proposals / applications is 1484, 1587 such as Dee House require full consultation. carried out through the development management process and Proposals for Dee House are not supported. as such, is not a policy requirement. In July 2016, final submissions for the re-development of Dee House were received from developers and evaluated. A preferred bidder was selected and that decision approved to enter into a Development Agreement. The decision was called in by Scrutiny Committee in September 2016, who made no further recommendations, allowing the Cabinet’s original decision to proceed. No change to policy required. 820 Planning applications for new build should include: The draft plan includes policies in relation to energy conservation, • energy conservation – solar panels for all new homes; house building requirements and development impacts with • fire sprinklers in all new homes regards to amenity and design. • offer lifetime homes suitable for older people No change to policy required. 848 New buildings should be in-keeping with the locality and development The proposed policy and boundary for Chester retains the extent of any green belt land should not be allowed. Boundary changes may of the North Cheshire Green Belt as set out in the Local Plan (Part affect a Churches parish which may cause local impacts. One). The policy protects the local character, environment, heritage and culture of the City. No change to policy required. 1135, 2205 Protection of River Dee and Shropshire Union Canal should be extended Policy has been amended to include a broader reference to CH1 – Chester settlement area Question 1 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to remaining open spaces adjacent to canal east of the city, and refer to protect the nature, quality and scale of strategic open space other waterways corridors corridors. Strategic open spaces are those identified on the policies map, and supported by the evidence base. 1356, 1520 Concerns about Wrexham Road allocation (traffic impacts; mix and type The location of the Wrexham Road strategic site for the delivery of housing) of approximately 1300 homes was set in the Local Plan (Part One). . Policy CH1 requires a comprehensive approach to the development of this site, and any proposals will be required to take account of all other relevant policies including housing mix and type, and traffic and transport assessments 1411 Access too Roodee is gated off during race days. They should be open Comments noted. This is not a planning policy issue. so that everyone can access it. No change to policy required. 1587 Boughton Gateway is extremely poor. Hopeful that policy will ensure Comments noted. No change to policy required. enhanced frontages. 1956, 1965 Approach does not recognise the limits of Chester to absorb high level The Local Plan (Part Two) should be read alongside the Part One of developments without damaging special character and qualities. plan, and should not repeat adopted policy. The importance of Emphasise and reinstate policy from STRAT 3. Chester and its unique character is emphasised throughout the plan and specifically in polices CH1 to CH7. 1995, 2167 Additional wording should be added in relation to Wrexham Road The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the broad requirements for development to: development of the strategic sites at Wrexham Road, which • provide a wide range of house types including bungalows includes the drafting of a development brief for the • provide community centre, sports facilities, and health centre comprehensive development of the site. • make land available for self-build properties The Local Plan (Part Two) should not repeat policy from the Part One plan and therefore the bullet point has been deleted. Additional development management policies relating to housing mix and type will be applicable to proposals for residential development. 2267 Bullet point relating to Wrexham Road should be deleted The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the broad requirements for development of the strategic sites at Wrexham Road, which includes the drafting of a development brief for the comprehensive development of the site. CH1 – Chester settlement area Question 1 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response The Local Plan (Part Two) should not repeat policy from the Part One plan and therefore the bullet point has been deleted. 2368 Development adjacent to waterways should be of high quality and The policy has been amended to provide reference to the canal provide active frontages corridors, and paragraph 2.3 of the explanation sets out additional details in respect of high quality development. 2568, 2654 No additional safeguarded land / allocated land has been identified for The spatial strategy, including quantum of housing and future development to ensure permanence of Green Belt. employment land required to 2030 was set in the Local Plan (Part One). The accompanying background papers and evidence base documents provided the information to support the delivery of the plan which included the identification of sufficient deliverable land to meet the housing requirement. No change to policy required. 2600 It is unclear what area of land is protected in relation to Dukes Drive. The strategic open spaces and green corridors are to be identified on the policies map and references to the maps has been added in the relevant policies and explanatory text.

Policy CH2 – Employment land provision in Chester Question 2: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2097 Historic England – there needs to be a robust assessment of all the sites The assessments in the HELAA identify where there are where they affect a heritage asset including its setting. Further development constraints on site, including historic assets. The guidance is provided. The SA makes an assumption of the impact HELAA identifies further assessment of these sites may be without undertaking a heritage impact assessment, taking account of required in line with Heritage England Advice. primary legislation and NPPF. Allocation of sites for development may A Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken on the present better opportunities for the historic environment. potential sites carried forward for assessment from the HELAA. This has been used to inform the site assessments in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). 2829 Welsh Water - currently investing in Chester Wastewater Treatment The Council welcomes the additional capacity improvements to Works (WwTW) to provide additional capacity to accommodate growth accommodate the Local Plan (Part One) growth requirements. Policy CH2 – Employment land provision in Chester Question 2: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response identified for Chester within the adopted Local Plan (Part One) - see site The site specific comments have been considered in the site specific comments below. assessments. 2601 There should be a mechanism provided in the policy to review The Local Plan (Part Two) will include a monitoring framework to employment allocations and identify additional land around Chester, if monitor the effects of the Plan alongside the Local Plan (Part One) the identified sites fail to come forward. requirements. The Council produces an Annual Monitoring Report and includes indicators on the take up and development of employment land in the Borough. 750 Identify more sites for mixed use – provide for vitality and flexibility The Council notes the comments and supports the development over time. of mixed use sites in line with NPPF paragraph 17 and 69. Within Chester, the Northgate Scheme and Chester Business Quarter are key sites identified in the Local Plan (Part One) to deliver mixed use developments in the city. The Local Plan (Part Two) will identify regeneration areas where mixed use development will be appropriate. 1413 Development needs to protect and take account of the risks to the The Local Plan (Part Two) will include other development environment and prevent pollution. management policies relating to environmental protection in the Borough. 1521 Need to support start-up businesses in Chester Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT2 provides for a range of sizes and types of employment site borough-wide. Employment land allocations will be made through the Local Plan (Part Two) to provide sites to meet a range of business needs. 1966 RSS recognised a significant over-supply of employment land in This issue was addressed through the Local Plan (Part One): Policy Cheshire and required its deallocation. STRAT2 sets out a revised employment requirement for Cheshire West and Chester of at least 365ha borough-wide. Site specific comments 1966 Chester Business Park (CH2.A) The support is noted. Chester Business Park is also covered under Support for the policy. policy GBC4 which references high quality development in a Reference to "high quality development in a parkland setting" should parkland setting. be reinstated and emphasised. Policy CH2 – Employment land provision in Chester Question 2: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 1966 Northern Gateway/Chester Business Quarter (CH2.B) The support is noted. The Chester Business Quarter is identified The site is supported as sustainably located brownfield land next to the as a key site in the Local Plan (Part One). station. 2174, 2141 Northern Gateway – Black Diamond Street (CH2.C) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land NPPF states policies should avoid the long term protection of Allocations Paper and take account of the Council’s employment employment land. This site is a long standing allocation, with planning land monitoring information. permission and extensive marketing. Recommend the allocation is revised to allow a wider mix of uses on the site to provide flexibility. 2667 Bumpers Lane (CH2.G) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Longstanding allocation with no delivery to date. The allocation is not Allocations Paper and policy recommendations are made for justified or effective. Technical evidence shows that the site is employment land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two). The site economically unviable. No new evidence is provided to show that these has been considered alongside options for the Chester Western issues are resolvable and that the site is deliverable in the plan period. Relief Road. The Council makes provision for sufficient Failure to deliver this site will undermine the strategic objectives of employment land to meet the borough-wide requirements. Local Plan (Part One) 365ha requirement. This residual employment amount should be re-apportioned to other sustainable employment locations near Ellesmere Port. 2829 Welsh Water. Site specific comments are provided for each proposed We understand that issues have been considered through the allocation. There are no comments on sites with planning permission planning application process. Further consultation will take place (CH2.B; CH2.C. CH2.E; CH2.F). with Welsh Water as part of any revised development proposal / planning application. 2829 CH2.A Chester Business Park These sites have had planning permission for new employment No public sewerage facilities near to site. Provisions of Circular 10/99 development. Further consultation will take place with Welsh “Planning Requirement in respect of the use of non-mains sewerage Water as part of any revised development proposal / planning incorporating septic tanks in new development” apply and consultation application. with Natural Resources Wales/Environment Agency will be required. The identification of employment land should be read alongside other relevant policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) on water quality, supply and treatment. Policy CH2 – Employment land provision in Chester Question 2: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2829 CH2.D Hoole Lane; CH2.G Bumpers Lane Further consultation will take place with Welsh Water as part of It is difficult to provide definitive sewerage capacity comments for any specific development proposal / planning application. employment allocations, as the potential demands on our The identification of employment land should be read alongside infrastructure is unknown at present. Once the type of ‘end user’ is other relevant policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) on water known and details of their waste requirements are available we would quality, supply and treatment. undertake further assessments at that time. 2829 CH2.G Bumpers Lane; CH2.H Hoole Road The development constraints are noted. The potential mitigation Potential developers need to be aware that this site is crossed by measures could be considered as part of any specific sewers and protection measures in the form of an easement width or a development proposal / planning application. The employment diversion of the pipe would be required. land allocations should be read alongside other relevant policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) on water quality, supply and treatment. 2829 CH2.G Bumpers Lane Further consultation will take place with Welsh Water as part of The site is in close proximity to the WwTW and may result in odour any specific development proposal / planning application. issues for future occupiers. We would recommend that consultation is The identification of employment land should be read alongside undertaken with your environmental protection department to other relevant development management policies in the Local determine whether it may be appropriate to provide a buffer area Plan (Part Two) in relation to the protection of amenity and between the works and development to ensure that no statutory odour environmental protection. nuisance is created. 2206, 1957, Sites should not be protected from alternative forms of development In line with the Local Plan (Part One), the Council aims to provide 703 for a range of sizes and types of employment site to meet the strategic development requirement for 2010-2030. Sites that contribute towards meeting the strategic development requirements should be protected from alternative forms of development. It is recognised that over the plan period development proposals for alternative uses will come forward. Other policies in the Local Plan will provide criteria to allow the assessment of specific planning applications.

CH3 – Chester regeneration areas Question 3 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 49, 158, 187, General support for policy No change to policy required 1273, 821, 1156, 1590 158 All plans should be underpinned by a transport plan and the area The policy has been amended to include reference to impacts of around the railway station is a priority. traffic. Text has been added to ‘Chester Gateway’ to ensure high quality development at a key gateway site. 187 Chester Castle area – important that public access is protected and Policy text has been amended to include reference to protecting enhanced public access where appropriate. 751 Northgate – reference to residential development should also be added Policy explanation has been amended and reference to to the statement in 2.13. residential development has been inserted. 752 Description of residential development in Northgate is unnecessarily The policy suggests examples of types of housing that could be restrictive. Affordable housing and housing for elderly may not be included within the development; however this does not restrict appropriate in premium development the house types / sizes. The Local Plan requires a mix and type of housing including affordable housing to provide for the local needs. 1414 All talk. How long will this take? Comments noted. No change to policy required. 2144 Proposed allocation at Hoole way and Black Diamond Street – lack of This site is allocated to meet the employment land provision for demand for employment use at this location. Recommend that the Chester under policy CH2. Please see responses to Question 2, allocation is revised to allow wider mix of uses. and Policy CH2. 2370 Development adjacent to waterways should maximise opportunities to Policy CH1 sets out the general policy requirements for provide active frontages and promote access to waterways. development proposals along and adjacent to the waterways in Chester. Policy CH3 identifies specific regeneration areas in Chester and sets out additional policy requirements and guidance in these areas. 2207 Policy does not adequately replace the Riverside development Brief All Development Briefs will be reviewed through the process of which should be updated. preparing the draft Local Plan (Part Two). 2819 Norther Gateway / Chester City Gateway should be amended to The areas have been reviewed and amended on the policies map encompass wider area including Hoole Bridge and the railway station. to align with wider Council regeneration areas. 2830 Potential developers need to be aware of sewers, protection measures Comments noted. The Council will engage with utilities providers (easements or diversion pipes). Sewerage capacity comments can be throughout the Local Plan process. CH3 – Chester regeneration areas Question 3 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response provided at the time of relevant applications. Opportunities to comment on draft development briefs are welcomed.

CH4 – University of Chester Question 4 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 50 There is no planning reason why the policy explanation sets out the The policy explanation provides background and supporting certain courses at certain sites. information in relation to the content of the draft policy. The policy recognises that there are a number of campuses across the city, and further detail is set out in the explanatory text. Identifying the specific faculties present on each campus may be a material consideration when considering development proposals and is therefore relevant information for inclusion alongside the policy. This is not considered to be an issue of soundness. 2134 Glenesk site – allocation should include residential accommodation. The ‘Glenesk’ site at Parkgate Road has been assessed through Revised wording proposed: The ‘Glenesk’ site, as identified on the the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment policies map, is allocated for the potential expansion of Parkgate (2017) (HELAA). Educational and residential development in this Campus. The site should be brought forward in a comprehensive location is not supported at this location as both uses are classed manner in the context of a development brief for the site and a strategy as ‘More vulnerable’. A significant proportion of the site is within for the Parkgate Campus as a whole. The development of student Flood Zone 3a and 3b. In accordance with EA advice set out in the accommodation as part of the mixed use higher education scheme will latest Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) and further EA need to be considered within the context of the exception and advice the draft proposed land allocation has been deleted from sequential tests. the policy. 159 A viable business plan is needed by University as there is a risk of over This is not a Local Plan (Part Two) issue which focuses on land use expansion planning issues. 159, 1332 Student accommodation growth has to be sustainable / plan led The Council’s Local Plan which has been positively prepared in approach line with the guidance set out in the NPPF. Sustainable CH4 – University of Chester Question 4 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response development is at the centre of the Local Plan and is reflected in the strategic polices set out in the Local Plan (Part One). 704 Academic development should only be allowed if appropriate student The Local Plan (Part One) seeks to support the provision of housing is provided purpose built accommodation and the evidence took account of University development. 1136 Integration of the Parkgate Road campus with canals should be The use of the City’s waterways, footpaths and towpaths is encouraged encouraged and supported through a number of policies in the plan. Policy DM 27 supports and encourages the use of routeways, including canals, whilst protecting and enhancing these environments as part of new developments. 1332 Thornton Science Park – education / teaching facilities and student The University of Chester vision for the Thornton Science Park accommodation should be developed on this site campus is considered in relation to draft policy EP5. It should also be noted that Thornton is in a major hazard zone within which residential development would not be appropriate. 1332 Restrain any further / additional new accommodation in existing Draft policies DM16 and DM17set out the Council’s proposed residential areas approach to proposals for student accommodation and HMO’s respectively. Please see the Council’s response to Question 57 of the Preferred Approach consultation. 1418 Emphasis is always on supporting stakeholders (University, Race Policies in the Local Plan (Part One) and emerging Part Two seek Company, Zoo). The threat the University represents to the welfare of to ensure that amenity of residents is protected. residents has not been considered. 2831 Proposed ‘Glenesk’ site is crossed by a number of sewers that would Comments noted – the Glenesk site is not proposed to be carried require protection measures. A development brief is welcomed. forward as an allocation.

CH5 – Chester city centre Question 5 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2208, 1275, • There will be fewer small shops as shopping habits change but the A full assessment of the city centre has been undertaken by 160 policy doesn’t reflect this. the Council’s retail consultants in line with the definitions in • There is a growing preference for town and city centres to retain a the Framework. Primary shopping frontages have been sense of character and not be over-run by the same old chain stores, identified with consideration of the strategic site at Northgate. so measures to encourage local business on the Rows are good. Primary shopping frontages have identified the core retail • All new development in Chester city centre must be of high quality element of the city centre that should be protected to design and should link back to ENV 5 and ENV 6 of the Local Plan (Part maintain vitality and viability. Secondary shopping frontages One) and have a commitment to the Manifesto of Contemporary and town centre boundaries have been identified and will Design approved as part of the One City Plan. allow for a greater range of uses that will allow flexibility and • The policy has an overly restrictive approach to a large part of the city promote diversity. centre (including the Rows) without sufficient evaluation of the effect of this policy or the potential for an alternative approach. It is agreed that the city centre should reflect a sense of place • The strength of Chester’s retail offer, quality and range of existing by offering a unique offer that will attract a range of shoppers shops and mixture of retail uses must be promoted in the Local Plan and tourists to the city centre and promoting the unique (Part Two) in order to protect and enhance the role of the city in the historic environment that Chester offers to visitors. The policy sub-region. will be amended to include reference to the Local Plan (Part • The policy seeks to protect Chester’s market share and vitality and One) Policy ENV 6 High Quality Design and Sustainable viability, however, there is no threat to Chester, rather the reverse. Construction (to promote respecting the local character and Proposals in Chester threaten the vitality and viability of suburban achieve a sense of place) and ENV 5 Historic Environment to centres in Chester and other town centres such as Ellesmere Port, ensure development within the city of Chester protects of Northwich and Winsford. enhances heritage. Local Plan (Part One) Policy ENV6 also acknowledges the manifesto for contemporary design. CH5 – Chester city centre Question 5 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2603, 51 Primary and Secondary Frontages Considerations have been made including alternative options • The secondary shopping street designation needs looking at. Shops for Chester city centre. A background document will be will be in zones rather than streets and the shopping centre will move produced for retail policy, considering the preferred approach north towards the Northgate Development. Shops and restaurants consultation responses, recommendations from the retail outside these zones will find it difficult to compete and should be study, SA and HRA. This will be produced alongside the allowed to move to other uses. publication version of the plan. Consideration to allowing • Grosvenor Estate is concerned with the general approach to retail in more flexibility within the Grosvenor Shopping Centre will be the primary shopping frontages and places too stringent a restriction made. upon change of use in these areas. Whilst it is agreed that Chester city centre should have an A1 focus, the current approach may stifle The Local Plan (Part One) ECON 2 sets out the retail hierarchy growth and investment. There is an absence of assessment within the for the borough and the town centre first approach. This Council’s evidence base of what impact this policy will have in directs retail development to centres that reflect the scale of contrast to adopting other approaches. It should be recognised that role of the centre within the retail hierarchy. that providing a mixture a A-class uses in the primary shopping frontage could attract an increased footfall. • The Grosvenor would be supportive of a policy which seeks to retain an identified percentage of A1 uses within the primary shopping area unless it can be demonstrated that there is no A1 demand, vacant units should be allowed to be changed into other A-class units if it can be demonstrated that there is no market demand for A1. • Boundaries are appropriate CH5 – Chester city centre Question 5 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2603, 1421 The Rows It is agreed that the approach taken on the Rows needs careful • The policy doesn’t cater for the Rows consideration and active frontages on the Row level should be • Restrictive policy particularly with uses in the Rows, and should allow promoted. Residential on upper levels could be encouraged to for greater flexibility to allow change of use to other uses, including increase footfall. residential, to ensure the continued use of these historical units, The Local Plan Working Group has been asked to consider the promoting mixed use development and greater footfall. policy approach to primary shopping frontages and the Rows th • It is important to retain active frontages on the Row to ensure during the meeting on 27 February 2017. The agenda and footfall and interest. Upper Row floors should be brought forward for minutes of the meeting can be found on the Councils website. residential.

CH6 – Chester Conservation Areas Question 6 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2209 Add the Shropshire Union Canal to the list of historic assets listed in the Agreed – Shropshire Union Canal to be added to the list of policy explanation. assets. 2579 The Council should allow the City Centre to evolve and recognise that new Comments noted well designed and prestigious developments in the historic core can have substantial benefits for the City and the wider City Region. 1529 Ensure conservation policies include some out of town historical buildings The historic environment policies of the Local Plan (Part Two) to ensure full protection of buildings of interest. will relate to historic assets outside of the City Centre. The Chester Historic Characterisation Study (2012) provides an evidence base for the consideration of historic assets within the City Centre as well as the outer areas of Chester. 2371 Request that the wording of the policy in the waterway section is Agreed – suggested wording has been added to the expanded to clarify that this also refers to those buildings and structures explanatory text associated with the waterway such as locks, bridges etc. This could be achieved by the addition of the following text:: “Proposals within the Chester river or canal conservation areas will be required to demonstrate that the development will make a positive contribution to the visual CH6 – Chester Conservation Areas Question 6 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response appearance and character of the area and preserve or enhance the setting of the waterway corridor and associated infrastructure in accordance with the Waterway Strategy….” 1425 Comments relating to the importance of The Castle and recognising the Comments noted. The Castle is recognised in the explanatory historic assets of Chester. text as a significant asset to the City. 1276 The Rows – include specific commitment to the implementation and The Council has commissioned a Chester Rows Conservation maintenance of a comprehensive lighting strategy. Management Plan which has considered lighting on The Rows in detail. The Chester Rows Conservation Management Plan has been referenced in Policy CH6. 1137, 1138 Support for reference to the waterways of Chester within the policy. Note The Chester Canal Conservation Area is specifically referenced that once designated, the Chester Canal Conservation Area, will extend the in the explanatory text to this policy. The accompanying relevant policies beyond the City of Chester to the entire line of the canal Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan will (through Ellesmere Port to Nantwich). provide the detail for assessing development along the length of the canal as well as the other relevant policies of the Plan such as DM40 – Development in Conservation Areas. 822 More importance should be attached to the amphitheatre which is the The policy recognises the Amphitheatre as a significant asset only one of its particular type in the country. As part of the Local Plan part for the City. In July 2016, final submissions for the re- 2 the desirability of opening up part or all of the amphitheatre (as much as development of Dee House were received from developers is available) should be included as a singular project. and evaluated. A preferred bidder was selected and that decision approved to enter into a Development Agreement. The decision was called in by Scrutiny Committee in September 2016, who made no further recommendations, allowing the Cabinet’s original decision to proceed. 188 Re: ‘it can be demonstrated that they have been sensitively designed, Agreed – include suggested wording having regard to their location and the immediate character of the area, and including consideration of building height’. The words immediate, consideration and to have regard to are weak and/or ambiguous. We suggest: ‘‘it can be demonstrated that they have been sensitively designed to have regard to their location and the character of the surrounding area, including the height of existing buildings’. CH6 – Chester Conservation Areas Question 6 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 188 Re : ‘they will not result in the loss of any historic routes’. This should be Agreed – policy text amended. strengthened to refer to maintenance of their widths and alignments, as currently protected under CDLP ENV 5. Some minor streets in Chester, although retaining their overall historic courses, were widened and straightened in the1960s. Small changes in alignment and variations in width are often historically significant and add to the aesthetic appeal of the city. 188 Re : 2.26 ‘Chester was a Roman Fortress and town of strategic importance Agreed – include suggested wording and it still retains much of its defences and Roman street pattern’. This statement should be enlarged on and strengthened: ‘Chester was a Roman fortress, Saxon burh and medieval city of strategic importance. Its still retains much of its defences and historic street pattern’. For the avoidance of doubt, these historic streets should be listed; they go far beyond the four main streets of the city.

CH7 – Chester – key views, landmarks and gateways and historic skyline Question 7 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2210 CH6 and CH7 have my support I would add to the list in 2.26, the Added to policy CH6. Shropshire Union Canal in Chester, with its dramatic cutting, awesome locks, and historic buildings around the Basin. The Chester Canal was one of the first 'modern' canals to be built in England. 2606 The Council should allow the City Centre to evolve and recognise that Comments noted new well designed and prestigious developments in the historic core can has substantial benefits for the City and wider City Region. 1426 Comments on this issue of local architect Mertin Band will be given Comment noted serious consideration. 1139 The Chester Canal Conservation Area Appraisal document specifies those The Canal Conservation Area has been considered through a CH7 – Chester – key views, landmarks and gateways and historic skyline Question 7 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response localities along the canal where the Chester skyline is a significant review of the key views diagram and evidence base element in the waterway scene and this should be recognised in policy document. CH7. 189 This policy overlooks the factor of topography, which is important in Agreed, policy text amended. creating Chester’s skyline. This concept is embodied in CDLP ENV 8: ‘The roofscape is an important factor in defining the skyline of the historic city due to the topography of the settlement’. This idea needs to be inserted in the new policy. CDLP ENV 40 refers to the ‘general roofscape which provides the context’ for landmark buildings. This concept is missing from the new policy. For ‘would not intrude upon strategic views; landmark buildings, historic townscapes and skyline’ we suggest ‘would not intrude upon strategic views; landmark buildings and their contextual roofscapes, historic townscapes and skyline ’. Re: ‘have an acceptable impact on the skyline’. ‘Acceptable’ is a weak expression that encourages the lowest possible standard of compliance. We suggest: ‘enhance the skyline’. 189 For key views the policy refers to the maps in the Chester and Agreed – the Key Views and gateways diagram from the Approaches Characterisation Study. However, these maps divide the city Chester Local Plan will be updated to include up-to-date into small areas, which is not helpful when considering longer-range surveys of the key views and an evidence base document will views; an overall map as in the existing CDLP is needed. It is important be provided which will include an assessment of the long that long-range views from the north-west are included, especially from range views from for example Parkgate and Sealand Road. the canal bridge on Parkgate Road, from Saughall Road (‘Blacon Meadows’) and Sealand Road.

189 Re: 2.39 ‘… tall buildings that do not make a positive contribution and to Such buildings will be assessed on a case by case basis in the their replacement’. It would be helpful if these were listed. context of an individual planning application. 4.8 Re: 2.39 One might add that long unvarying rooflines (whether flat Comment noted. or monopitches) are inappropriate in Chester.

Ellesmere Port: Questions 8 to 14

EP1 - Ellesmere Port Question 8 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2461, 163, General support for the settlement boundary and draft policy The Council welcomes the general support for the policy. 54 2461 Plan Introduction should be expanded to set out the Borough’s The Council notes the comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) should be strategic position in the North West and its central relationship read alongside Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies. The Local Plan (particularly in relation to Ellesmere Port) to key strategies and (Part One) sets out the Cheshire West and Chester profile and the initiatives such as SuperPort, Atlantic Gateway, Northern Spatial Strategy for the levels of new development. The economic Powerhouse. Ellesmere Port’s Assisted Area and Cheshire Science growth strategies for the sub-region and the Council’s approach Corridor Enterprise Zone status should also be noted. The towards accommodating growth were addressed through the Local introduction could be used to acknowledge the many key strategic Plan (Part One). assets and national scale infrastructure projects which are being brought forward. At present the Plan makes no reference to: SuperPort, Atlantic Gateway, Northern Powerhouse or Ellesmere Port’s Assisted Area status which is disappointing. 2572 Redrow has been a longstanding objector to the approach of the The Council notes the comments. This issue was considered in the Local Plan taken in Ellesmere Port with regards to the Green Belt. preparation of the Local Plan (Part One). In line with the Local Plan Prior representations have stated that we believe that a borough- (Part One) the general extent of the North Cheshire Green Belt will be wide Green Belt review should have taken place during LP1. The maintained. review should take place immediately and seek to allocate sites for development during the plan period. 2572 Site specific comments provided in relation to the land at Dunkirk The Council notes the comments. Sites have been reviewed through Farm, Ellesmere Port is adjacent to the existing Backford Cross the HELAA (2017) and the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). allocation where planning applications for 325 homes are in for determination with the Council. This is a sustainable and sensible In line with the Local Plan (Part One) the general extent of the North location for release for development of 455 new homes when Cheshire Green Belt will be maintained. undertaking a review and can fulfil the three objectives of sustainable development. 2572 Object to the reference made towards the delivery of the Ledsham The Council agrees with the comments. The allocation of the Ledsham Road site in policy EP1. The site already has outline planning Road site is made through Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT4. The EP1 - Ellesmere Port Question 8 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response permission for 2,000 houses where there is a masterplan and design site has planning permission and is under construction. The policy will approved establishing how the site will come forward. be amended to remove the reference to the strategic allocation in the This site is in sole ownership and under a long term option to policy. Redrow Homes. The text includes a vague reference to comprehensive development despite there already being a planning permission in place that sets out the site’s future development. It is therefore recommended that the Council remove the sixth bullet point from the plan. 18 Safe cycling routes should be identified: The Council notes the comments. Policy EP1 supports improved links - Sutton Way should have a cycle lane between the town centre, the waterfront, Rossfield Park and the - Include cycle lanes/routes around M53 junctions 5 to 11 Stanlow area. This should also be read alongside other relevant - Routes to Ince and Stanlow policies on transport in the local plan and the work on the Ellesmere Port Transport Strategy. 163 Improvements to transport and general infrastructure are vital for The Council notes the comments. The policy should be read alongside this area but would also hope natural resources can be protected other relevant policies of the Local Plan (Part One) and Local Plan (Part and particularly for local leisure pursuits. Two) DM44 natural environment and DM DM37 recreational routeways. 1941 Include reference to support economic development and job The Council agrees with the comments and has included reference to creation in the settlement (suggested wording provided) economic development and job creation within the explanation to the policy. 2109 Brownfield sites can support significant wildlife. Where ecological The Council notes the comments. The policy should be read alongside assessments identify this is the case, on site mitigation or off site other relevant policies of the Local Plan (Part One) and Local Plan (Part compensation should be provided. Two) regarding biodiversity and ecological networks (DM44).

2109 Support for improvements to gateways, corridors and greenspaces The Council welcomes the support for this part of the policy. in Ellesmere Port including the M53/Shropshire Union Canal Corridor 2461 Support for in principle town centres as vibrant mixed use centre to The Council welcomes the support for this part of the policy. support local need 2461 Support for paragraph 3.5 which highlights that opportunities for The Council welcomes the support for this part of the policy. EP1 - Ellesmere Port Question 8 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response freight transport on the rail network or via the Manchester Ship Canal should be maximised and new links to these networks will be encouraged where appropriate (Peel). 2670 The Settlement boundary does not reflect the principles of STRAT4 The Council notes the comments. as it excludes Ince Park (Protos) – this site should be located within The policy explanation states the settlement boundary for Ellesmere the settlement boundary. Port has been drawn to meet the town's development needs, support urban regeneration and protect the Green Belt in line with Local Plan Policy STRAT 4 identifies that Ince Park is a “key site” with (Part One) policy STRAT9, paragraph 5.73 states the Council will considerable potential to achieve future economic growth and “define settlement boundaries for the four urban areas...Where there confirms that the site is safeguarded as a multi-modal resource is a need to accommodate development on the edge of a settlement recovery park and energy from waste facility. Despite this, the the boundary will be drawn to reflect this. Land beyond the settlement proposed revision to the Policies Map omits Ince Park from the boundaries will be classed as countryside and subject to the settlement boundary and shows the site as unallocated “white requirements of Policy STRAT9”. land”. The Ince Park (Protos) site is allocated under Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV8 Manging Waste. Further policy criteria for the site is included within Local Plan (Part Two) policy EP6 Ince Park. The settlement boundary for Ellesmere Port has been amended to include the allocations on land at Station Road Ince, Protos (Ince Park), and the manufacturing facilities at Encirc Glass and CF Fertilisers. 2670 The settlement boundary should be expanded to include the land to The Council disagrees with the comments. The site has been reviewed the east of Ince Park, in line with representations made on policy through the HELAA (2017) and Land Allocations Background Paper EP6(b). (2017). The settlement boundary for Ellesmere Port is defined under policy EP1 and follows the green belt boundary (STRAT9). The policy is intended to guide new regeneration and development proposals within the urban area and town centre of Ellesmere Port. The settlement boundary for Ellesmere Port has been amended to include the allocations on land at Station Road Ince, Protos (Ince Park), the manufacturing facility and employment allocation at Encirc Glass and the existing CF Fertilisers site. However, the land to the east of Ince Park (Protos) is not EP1 - Ellesmere Port Question 8 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response recommended for allocation as it is undeveloped greenfield land and therefore remains outside the settlement boundary in the countryside. Please refer to comments on policy EP6.

EP2 – Employment land provision in Ellesmere Port Question 9 - Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2116 Historic England – there needs to be a robust assessment of all the The assessments in the HELAA identify where there are development sites where they affect a heritage asset including its setting. Further constraints on site, including historic assets. The HELAA identifies guidance is provided. The SA makes an assumption of the impact further assessment of these sites may be required in line with Historic without undertaking a heritage impact assessment, taking account England Advice. of primary legislation and NPPF. Allocation of sites for development A Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken on the potential may present better opportunities for the historic environment. sites carried forward for assessment from the HELAA. This has been used to inform the site assessments in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). 2462 There is a shortfall in the borough-wide employment land supply. Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Additional land should be identified to meet the Local Plan (Part Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land One) requirement. allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide requirements. 2260 NPPF paragraph 22 states that “Planning policies should avoid the Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and the Land Allocations long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where Paper and which makes policy recommendations for employment land there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated requirements. employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or Employment allocations from the predecessor local plans have been buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market reviewed. Sites that are considered suitable, available and achievable signals and the relative need for different land uses to support with a reasonable prospect of development in the local plan period sustainable local communities.” are to be carried forward and appropriate new sites identified. EP2 – Employment land provision in Ellesmere Port Question 9 - Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response Site specific comments 2462 Stanlow - land to the west of New Bridge Road (EP2.B) Sites have been reviewed through the Stanlow Special Policy Area There is general support for the allocation. It is proposed to amend Review, the HELAA and the Land Allocations Paper. The Council the type of uses to be compatible with the Stanlow policy that notes the general support for the allocation and agrees with the 'washes over' the site. comments; the policy has been amended in line with the Stanlow Special Policy Area for consistency and to provide flexibility for the type of potential employment uses on the site. Further consideration of visual impacts, design and potential impacts on heritage assets may be required in the New Bridge Road area due to the prominent location alongside the M53 and Shropshire Union Canal corridor. Cheshire Oaks Business Park (EP2.E) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations 2260 The policy is over-restrictive and not flexible - alternative uses are Paper (site reference WHI/0012). proposed to include retail and leisure development and other The potential use of the site has been assessed in the context of the employment generating uses. Suggested policy wording is provided. Local Plan (Part One) housing and employment land requirements, together with the development requirements for main town centre uses and NPPF. Rossmore Road East (EP2.F) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations 2462 There is general support for the allocation. It is proposed to amend Paper. The Council notes the general support for the allocation. The the type of uses to B1, B2, B8 uses. policy will be amended to include B1, B2 and B8 employment uses, to allow for flexibility in the types of employment development that could be accommodated on site. 2462, 2672 Additional sites Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations It is requested that Booston Oil Depot is allocated in line with the Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land Draft Mersey Ports Masterplan. Further sites were put forward for allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision consideration at; Old Camp; land off Stanney Mill Road; Hooton Park for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide (HCA marketed land); Newport Business Park; East of Ince Park requirements. 2812 Sites EP2.A, EP2.B, EP2.C, EP2.D The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside HSE - there is the potential for employment land allocations to other relevant policies within the Local Plan including; encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; STRAT2 EP2 – Employment land provision in Ellesmere Port Question 9 - Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT11 allocations. Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, employment and enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well being.  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous installations. The Stanlow Special Policy Area Review (August 2016) reviews potential development constraints in the area. There are a number of hazard zones in the surrounding area. Whilst the hazard zones do not preclude development, they influence the nature and extent of development that can take place. In some cases, the hazardous zones relate to historic industries that are decommissioned and no longer located there, potentially inhibiting successive land uses. The Stanlow Study recommends an ongoing programme of review of the zones as operational requirements may change over time. The employment policies will be amended where appropriate to reference the links to DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations or DM48 development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. In line with this policy, new development in the vicinity of hazardous installations will not be permitted if it would result in a significant increase in the numbers of the people being subjected to threshold levels of risk. Advice will be sought from the HSE on specific planning applications/development proposals for within the area.

EP3 - Hooton Park Question 10: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2117 Historic England - there are various grade II heritage assets on site in A Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken on the potential addition to the grade II* hangars. The policy should be amended to employment sites carried forward for assessment from the HELAA. include reference to 'ancillary buildings'. The Council will amend the policy to include reference to 'ancillary buildings'. 2811 HSE - there is the potential for employment land allocations to The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the other relevant policies within the Local Plan including; compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; STRAT2 allocations. (Site EP3) Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT11 Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, employment and enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well- being.  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous installations. The policy will be amended to reference the links to DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations or DM48 development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. In line with this policy, new development in the vicinity of hazardous installations will not be permitted if it would result in a significant increase in the numbers of the people being subjected to threshold levels of risk. Advice will be sought from the HSE on specific planning applications/development proposals for within the area.

Policy EP4 – Stanlow Special Policy Area Question 11: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2809 HSE - there is the potential for employment land allocations to The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the other relevant policies within the Local Plan including; compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; STRAT2 Policy EP4 – Stanlow Special Policy Area Question 11: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response allocations (site EP4). Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT11 Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, employment and enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well being.  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous installations. The Stanlow Special Policy Area Review (August 2016) reviews potential development constraints in the area. There are a number of hazard zones in the surrounding area. Whilst the hazard zones do not preclude development, they influence the nature and extent of development that can take place. In some cases, the hazardous zones relate to historic industries that are decommissioned and no longer located there, potentially inhibiting successive land uses. The Stanlow Study recommends an ongoing programme of review of the zones as operational requirements may change over time. The policy will be amended to reference the links to DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations or DM48 development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. In line with this policy, new development in the vicinity of hazardous installations will not be permitted if it would result in a significant increase in the numbers of the people being subjected to threshold levels of risk. Advice will be sought from the HSE on specific planning applications/development proposals for within the area. 2143 Consider the relationship between the Stanlow Special Policy Area Please refer to consultation responses on draft Policy EP5 – Thornton and Thornton Science Park, to maximise the economic potential of Science Park. both. 2143 The site is a key part of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and The Council notes the importance of the sites in the context of the Cheshire Science Corridor. Strategic Economic Plan and Cheshire Science Corridor. 2143 The Council should commit to preparing, with partners, a wider Please refer to consultation responses on draft Policy EP5 – Thornton Policy EP4 – Stanlow Special Policy Area Question 11: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response strategic framework for the Stanlow and Thornton policy areas. This Science Park. should be reflected in wording to both policies EP4 and EP5. 2143 The Stanlow designation should not constrain the development and Please refer to consultation responses on draft Policy EP5 – Thornton market potential of adjacent site (Thornton) by unneighbourly or Science Park. hazardous development. Additional wording proposed to ensure no conflict with the continuing operation of existing businesses or Thornton Science Park. 2375 Expand the text to ensure development along the Shropshire Union The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside Canal takes account of the waterside setting and maximises other relevant policies within the Local Plan including high quality opportunities regarding sustainable access, waterway frontage and design and sustainable construction, landscape and green sustainable heating/cooling. infrastructure and water management. Further consideration of visual impacts, design and potential impacts on heritage assets may be required in the New Bridge Road area due to the prominent location alongside the M53 and Shropshire Union Canal corridor.

EP5 – Thornton Science Park Question 12 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2146, 2055 University of Chester firmly support the designation of the Thornton The support for the policy and designation on the policies map is Science Park on the policies map. The designation is justified by noted. national and local planning policy and wider economic initiatives. 2055 Concern the policy wording (‘small’ enterprise development) is not The Council has amended the policy to delete reference to ‘small’ consistent with the vision and objectives for the science park. The enterprises in line with the vision and objectives of the Science Park. reasoned justification to the policy could be more positive and The policy explanation has been amended to reference the close recognise the unique and significant opportunity that the campus relationship between Thornton Science Park and the surrounding offers to the regional economy. areas in line with its designation as part of the Cheshire Science Corridor Enterprise Zones and the development priorities of the Strategic Economic Plan. The explanation will reference the positive role the site has in the EP5 – Thornton Science Park Question 12 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response wider economy. In line with NPPF paragraph 21, the site supports existing business sectors and plans positively for the promotion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven, creative or high technology industries. 2055 The breadth of uses and development supported by the draft policy is The proposed uses have been considered in the context of NPPF, the too narrow to support and sustain the long term place-making Local Plan (Part One), relevant evidence base reports and other objectives of the UoC and to maximise its economic potential representations to the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred approach (below). 2055 The draft policy limits business uses to B1 (b and c) (research and Thornton Science Park is located within the Stanlow Special Policy development and light industry) and should be expanded to include Area boundary. The Stanlow SPA Review (August 2016) identifies the B1(a) office and B2 (general industry). important links with businesses in the surrounding area. Within the Stanlow area new employment development falling within use classes B1 and B2 will be permitted subject to specific criteria being met. The Thornton policy will be amended to align with the approach for the wider area regarding B1 and B2 use classes, subject to other relevant policy criteria being met. 2055 The draft policy allows for use class D1 education on the site. Whilst Thornton Science Park is located within the existing employment the UoC supports this, specific reference to ‘education’ should be area of Stanlow, where there is a legacy of current and historic deleted. E.g. to allow for non-educational community uses such as industrial uses. The Stanlow SPA Review (August 2016) has reviewed conferencing facilities. This could have a positive role in collaboration the development constraints within the area. A consultation with business. response to the Local Plan (part Two) preferred approach has been received from HSE. Future uses within the site should be compatible with HSE development advice for new development within hazardous consultation zones and potential risks (see below). As such the policy is restricted to specific employment uses only taking account of other relevant policies in the Plan relating to development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. The Council will liaise with the HSE and the University of Chester on future proposals to ensure that measures are taken to mitigate risks where appropriate, whilst supporting future growth opportunities in EP5 – Thornton Science Park Question 12 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response this area. 2055 The draft policy permits “ancillary support facilities”, however the Please refer to the above response. New development should be justification does not provide guidance on what this entails. The place- compatible with HSE development advice within hazardous making strategy for the campus promotes collaboration between consultation zones and potential risks. As such, the reference to D1 users and a key part of the strategy will be provision of retail and use has been deleted from the policy. Use Class B1(b) relates to leisure uses such as shops, cafes and restaurants. The UoC request the research and development of products and processes and is included draft policy is revised to state the campus can accommodate A1 shops in the policy. and A3 café/restaurants. Town centre uses would be considered within the context of NPPF and Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON2. The policy is therefore This change will be consistent with the emerging Local Development amended to remove the reference to ‘ancillary support facilities’. Order (LDO) which will include these at a defined scale, but beyond The Council is considering the use of a Local Development Order for what would be considered ‘ancillary’. the site. Early work on evidence gathering for a potential LDO has been undertaken, but formal consultation on a draft LDO has not yet taken place. Further information is needed on the potential scope of an LDO going forward, alongside other representations and development constraints in the area. The boundary for the Thornton Science Park as shown on the policies map covers the site as a whole and is larger than the area covered by a potential LDO. This includes the listed and locally listed buildings on the site and takes account of the heritage impact assessment. In the absence of an LDO, any planning applications within this area will be considered in the context of the development plan and any other material considerations. 2055 Reference should be made to the emerging Local Development Order Local Development Orders provide planning permission to specific for the site. types of development within a defined area and are prepared under different regulations. Local Development Orders only grant planning permission, and do not remove the need to comply with other relevant legislation and regulations. There are certain restrictions in place for the use of Local Development Orders. LDO’s are restricted where; (i) development EP5 – Thornton Science Park Question 12 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response affects a listed building or setting; (ii) development could have a significant effect upon a European site; (iii) development requires an EIA under schedule 1 of the EIA regulations. The Council is considering the use of a Local Development Order for the site and has undertaken early evidence work. This needs to be considered in the context of specific development constraints in the area and other relevant overarching planning policies. The Council will continue to liaise with the University of Chester and developers on future employment growth in the area. In the mean time, any planning applications within this area will be considered in the context of the development plan and any other material considerations. 2813 HSE - there is the potential for employment land allocations to The policy for Thornton Science Park should be read alongside other encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the relevant policies within the Local Plan including; compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; STRAT2 allocations. (site EP5) Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT11 Workplace Allocations Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, employment and  Inner Zone – Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) providing for enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well less than 100 occupants in each building and less than 3 occupied being. storeys are compatible with the inner zone. Retail developments  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous with less than 250m² total floor space are compatible with the installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous inner zone. installations.  Middle Zone – The middle zone is compatible with workplaces The Stanlow Special Policy Area Review (August 2016) reviews (predominantly non-retail). Retail developments with total floor potential development constraints in the area. There are a number space up to 5000m² are compatible with the middle zone. of hazard zones in the surrounding area. Whilst the hazard zones do  Outer Zone – Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) are not preclude development, they influence the nature and extent of compatible with the outer zone. Workplaces (predominantly non- development that can take place. In some cases, the hazardous retail) specifically for people with disabilities (e.g. sheltered zones relate to historic industries that are decommissioned and no workshops) are only compatible with the outer zone. Retail longer located there, potentially inhibiting successive land uses. The developments with more than 5000m² total floor space are Stanlow Study recommends an ongoing programme of review of the EP5 – Thornton Science Park Question 12 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response compatible with the outer zone. zones as operational requirements may change over time. Note : Workplaces (predominantly non-retail) providing for 100 or The Thornton Science Park policy will be amended to reference the more occupants in any building or 3 or more occupied storeys in links to DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations or DM48 height are compatible with the inner zone where the development is development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. In line at the major hazard site itself and will be under the control of the site with this policy, new development in the vicinity of hazardous operator. installations will not be permitted if it would result in a significant increase in the numbers of the people being subjected to threshold levels of risk. Advice will be sought from the HSE on specific planning applications/development proposals for within Thornton. Draft policy DM48 allows for “Exceptions to this policy may be considered in existing built-up areas or where there is an existing commitment to development, in order to achieve a balance between the need for investment and regeneration within the existing urban areas and the degree of risk involved.” Where, under exceptional circumstances development may be permitted, the Council will require that all practicable measures be taken to mitigate risks by, for example, careful building design and the preparation of emergency procedures. 2146 The Council should commit to preparing with partners, a wider The Council will continue to engage with the University of Chester strategic framework for the Thornton and Stanlow policy area to regarding future development proposals and the possibility of a identify key relationships and to identify investment requirements in masterplan on Thornton Science Park and surrounding area. supporting public transport and other infrastructure to ensure the The Thornton Science Park is within the Stanlow Special Policy area Science Park and wider Stanlow area achieve their full potential. and as such development proposals should be in line with policy EP4. The policies for Thornton Science Park and Stanlow Special policy The setting and environment of the science park should be a clear area should be read alongside each other, together with other consideration in development proposals within Stanlow, to ensure the relevant policies in the Plan. sites future potential is not unduly constrained by unneighbourly or The policy has been amended to support transport infrastructure hazardous development (wording suggested for policy EP4 Stanlow). improvements in the area where appropriate. Policy EP4 Stanlow Special Policy area will be reviewed alongside comments on policy EP5 Thornton Science Park.

EP6.A - Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council’s Response 2674 EP6.A – general support for the draft policy (This is Protos) as being The general support for the policy is welcomed. broadly consistent with the requirements of Local Plan (Part One)

2674 EP6.A – Notwithstanding the ‘in principle’ support, specific comments (i) The policy for Ince Park should be read alongside other relevant are provided on the draft policy criteria (This is Protos); policies in the Local Plan. Local Plan (part One) policy STRAT4 (i) Criteria 2 & 3 requires development to ‘make maximum use’ of identifies Ince Park as a key site in connection with the freight on the Manchester Ship Canal and rail network. Whilst this is recycling, recovery and reprocessing of waste in line with policy strongly advocated, it could be an unreasonable burden for some ENV8. Policy STRAT4 ‘Ellesmere Port’ goes on to state: businesses. TiP is investing in the multi-modal infrastructure “opportunities for freight transport on the rail network or via consented on the site and this will provide the opportunity and the Manchester Ship Canal should be maximised. New links to commercial incentive to make use of these facilities, but the reality these networks will be encouraged where appropriate”. It is not is that not all operators will do so (for reasons of scale, type or necessary to duplicate the policy in STRAT4. The policy will be operation). Those operators may, however, significantly contribute amended to reference the Local Plan (Part One) relating to to the success of the development and its intended purpose. transport. (ii) Criteria 5 protects and enhances the ecological mitigation areas (ii) The ecological mitigation areas are an important part of the that form part of the consented scheme. There could be other proposed Resource Recovery Park. The Council considers that it means of achieving this without adhering to the consent. is essential that these areas are retained in line with the Alternative policy wording suggested to refer to ‘wherever practicable’ existing permissions for the site as a whole and that the in criteria 2 and 3. extensive mitigation areas are retained and where possible Alternative wording for criteria 5 proposed: enhanced. Further recommendations on the ecological impacts minimise and mitigate adverse impacts on nature conservation within are also identified through the Habitats Regulations Assessment and adjoining the site. The biodiversity benefits of the ecological Screening Report. The policy criteria and explanation have been mitigation areas that form part of the consented Resource Recovery amended to provide further information on the ecological Park must be protected and enhanced maintained; designations. Development proposals would also need to be Criteria are not “consistent with national policy” because their considered alongside other relevant policies including Local combined requirement will over-burden development and will Plan (Part One) policy ENV4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity and represent a potential barrier to investment. Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM38. 2808 HSE where possible will make representations to ensure that New development should be compatible with HSE development EP6.A - Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council’s Response compatible development within the consultation zones of major hazard advice within hazardous consultation zones and potential risks. establishments and major accident hazard pipelines (MAHPs) is The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies within achieved. the Local Plan including; There is the potential for employment land allocations (EP6.A) to  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the STRAT2 Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace STRAT11 Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, allocations. employment and enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well-being.  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous installations. The Ince Park / Protos site has existing planning permissions and consents for the development of the site. Many potentially competing factors such as different energy options, The policy on Ince Park (Protos) should be read alongside other interests of local residents, natural resources, need to be balanced. relevant policies in the Local Plan (Part One) and (Part Two). Proper consultation is needed given the sensitive issues around fracking The policy has been amended to include reference to policy DM53 and diversity of the area. ‘Requirements for proposals for development of waste management facilities’. Policy DM53 requires “Proposals for larger waste management schemes will be encouraged to make arrangements for regular site liaison committees involving members of the local community, which should operate throughout the development, operation and where applicable, decommissioning of the site”. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) provides details on how the Council intends to feedback decisions and information to stakeholders on the preparation of local development documents and the determination of planning applications. Paragraph 9.6 of the SCI states “The Council encourages developers involved in ‘significant’ planning applications to carry out independent public consultations prior to EP6.A - Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council’s Response the submission of schemes, providing the community with an early opportunity to become involved in proposals for their area”. 1334 The policy framework should be significantly expanded so as to The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the encourage ‘good neighbourliness’ with nearby residential communities. Local Plan. Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC5 supports proposals that consider the specific requirements of different groups in the The policy framework should embed accountability, honesty, openness, community. Development that gives rise to significant adverse transparency and information to local communities on development impacts on health and quality of life, including residential amenity, proposals and crucially environmental impacts and emergency will not be allowed. The criteria in policy EP6.A seeks to minimise preparedness. any adverse impacts on local residential amenity particularly for residents of Elton and Ince. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out how the Council will involve key stakeholders and the local community in the preparation and review of the Local Plan and on specific planning applications. 1334 Open and accountable management of community benefit funds should The Local Plan relates to development and use of land. A be in the policy framework. Community Benefit Fund is a voluntary fund established alongside the Ince Park (and Frodsham wind farm) development - the management of these funds is not covered by the planning permission on the site and is outside the control of local plan policies. 218 National Trust – new development should have regard to landscape The policy criteria has been amended to read: character impacts, particularly on Helsby Hill and Frodsham. These are “Undertake landscaping appropriate to the development that landforms with significant views (e.g. intervisibility from hill fort to respects the landscape character of the site and its surroundings iconic sites). (ENV2)”. Additional bullet proposed: The potential impacts on landscape were considered through the “Development will be required to respect of the landscape character of planning application process and public inquiry for the site as a the site and its surroundings, including the views available over the site whole. Landscaping schemes will also be provided on the individual from key locations such as Helsby and Frodsham Hills”. development plots in line with the masterplan for the wider site. 1503 EP6.A – additional bullet point required to provide public transport The policy criteria has been amended to read; infrastructure improvements, so that neighbouring communities can “make provision for public access on the site (including public access employment by other modes than the car. transport), where this would not be prejudicial to the industrial EP6.A - Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council’s Response operations, rail or other commercial movements on the site and/or to public safety” 59 Temporary uses could be considered where they would not prejudice The comments are noted. Individual planning applications would the long term development of the area. be considered on their merits on a case by case basis. The policy requires development to be considered in the context of other planned/consented development in Ince Park and where it would not undermine the safeguarded capacity to meet waste management needs.

EP6.B - East of Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 1503 EP6(b) – disagree with the identification of this land as surplus to The draft policy wording and the identification of land to the east requirements for industrial use. of Ince Park in the LPP2PA has been reviewed against NPPF, updated evidence reports, the consultation responses received and other relevant information. The Council makes adequate provision to meet the employment land requirements established in Local Plan (Part One) to 2030 as set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper. 1503 EP6(b) land should be returned to the wider Ince/Frodsham Marshes The Council notes the comments. The green belt boundaries for the designation and used to safeguard the ‘gap’ between Ellesmere Port borough are established through the Local Plan (Part One). Sites coterminous with the green belt and ramsar designations have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two). 2743 Query on whether it is necessary to allocate an additional 40ha Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations greenfield site, where there is brownfield land nearby in Stanlow. Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two). 2743 Access issues are identified. A strategic approach to development of The Council notes the comments. Sites have been reviewed local roads to meet employment needs is needed. through the HELAA and Land Allocations Paper and this makes EP6.B - East of Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response policy recommendations for employment land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two). This includes the potential transport impacts of new development. Further Transport Assessment is required and it is noted that the development of this site would need to be in connection with infrastructure provision that is being delivered as part of the Protos scheme. EP6(b) – Protos welcomes the Council’s recognition of the potential The draft policy wording and the identification of land to the east employment benefits and general suitability of the site for employment of Ince Park in the LPP2PA has been reviewed against NPPF, purposes, but has significant concerns to the soundness of the updated evidence reports, the consultation responses received and 2674 proposed approach and terminology surrounding “safeguarding”. There other relevant information. is justification to allocate the site for employment use in Local Plan The preferred approach recognised that the site is a retained (part Two). Issues considered against NPPF and the soundness. If allocation from the EPNBC Local Plan for a specific use (oil, allocation is not accepted then the reference to safeguarding should be chemical and related uses). It was not identified as part of the removed, but retain a criteria-based policy to allow for employment use revised employment land supply for the Borough. The LPP2PA in the plan period. recognised the need for further information to understand the potential impacts of any development on this site individually and cumulatively coming forward locally and in neighbouring areas (flood risk, ecology, transport, accessibility, amenity, landscape and other impacts) and the potential mix and type of uses that could be accommodated in the future. The site was discounted from the HELAA during stage 1 suitability assessment due to flood risk. However, the Council sought to consider and understand the longer term potential for the site to meet long term employment needs through the consultation. The Council agrees that terminology on 'safeguarding' should be removed. Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide requirements. The site is not recommended to EP6.B - East of Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response be carried forward for allocation. 2674 EP6(b) Comments are provided on specific policy criteria (Protos). It is The Council notes the comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) is being considered that under criteria 2 - the NPPF does not have a sequential prepared in line with NPPF and the policies of the Local Plan (Part requirement for PDL to be used first; Criteria 3 – preference for One) Strategic Policies. development to be located in the Ince Park scheme - wholly Local Plan (Part One) Policy STRAT1 seeks to encourage the use and unreasonable and should be deleted; Criteria 6 is imprecise and redevelopment of previously developed land and buildings in requires clarity. sustainable locations that are not of high environmental value. It also seeks to minimise the loss of greenfield land and high grade agricultural land and support regeneration. Policy STRAT2 seeks to bring forward new development in line with the settlement hierarchy of the Borough. The Stanlow Special Policy Area Review (2016) indicates that there is suitable and available undeveloped land within the Special Policy area boundary that could come forward for new employment development. 2674 Employment land supply – the additional land to the east of Ince Park Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations should be identified to meet the Local Plan (Part One) employment land Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment requirement. land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes There is insufficient weight to the qualitative employment benefits to provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough- allocating land to the east of Ince Park. wide requirements. Quantitative and qualitative evidence is provided to promote the In line with the Local Plan (part One) the Council seeks to allocation of the site (land to the east of Ince Park) for employment use. encourage the use and redevelopment of previously developed Environmental Appraisal (RSK September 2016) provided for land to the land. The site is discounted from the HELAA (2017) as it is identified east of Protos (previously Ince Park) to cover a range of topics; as a flood storage area in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk planning, geology, soils and contamination, hydrology and flood risk, Assessment (2016). Further Flood Risk Assessment is required to ecology and biodiversity, archaeology and cultural heritage, landscape understand the level of risk, taking account of surrounding and visual, transport, air quality, noise and utilities. developments and mitigation areas. Through the preferred approach consultation, the Council recognised the long term qualitative benefits of the site given the position adjacent to the Ince Park (Protos) development and the Manchester Ship Canal, with potential opportunities for multi- EP6.B - East of Ince Park (Protos) Question 13: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response modal transport. However, this is dependent on the infrastructure provision and development of the Protos scheme together with additional assessment of constraints and mitigation measures where appropriate. It is considered unlikely that the development of this site could come forward within the plan period.

EP7 – Ellesmere Port Historic Canal Port Question 14 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Summary of issue raised Council response 2214 Support this policy and would like to see better links between Ellesmere Policy EP1 of the Local Plan (Part Two) sets out the principles for Port town centre and the canal on its eastern side, and a general development within the Ellesmere Port settlement boundary which upgrade of this area. includes improving the links between the town centre, the Waterfront and the Stanlow area. 2465 Request that the boundary of policy area EP7 be redrawn to exclude Agreed – the boundary will be amended on the polies map to operational port land i.e. most of the land to the north of Lower Mersey exclude operational port land. Check with Conservation whether ok Street. The boundary of the existing Historic Port Conservation Area and possible need for a HIA for the proposed uses in the Historic may be a more appropriate boundary. Canal Port The policy should be read alongside other policies of the Local Plan. Policy EP7 should make reference to the need to ensure that any new Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV 9 requires safeguarding of development that does come forward is compatible and does not Cheshire West and Chester's extent of finite natural resources and conflict with the use of the existing adjacent operational port. associated infrastructure from incompatible development. Local Plan (Part Two) Policy DM61 Minerals Infrastructure identifies mineral infrastructure safeguarded sites including Manisty Wharf Ellesmere Port. Non-mineral development with the potential to impact on a mineral infrastructure safeguarded site used for mineral processing, handling, and transportation should meet the requirements of this policy, together with other relevant policies in the plan. 2455 Should also refer to protecting ecology - in canal and other nearby Text has been added to the policy explanation to state that EP7 – Ellesmere Port Historic Canal Port Question 14 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Summary of issue raised Council response waters development proposals should therefore be considered in the context of the wider ecological network for the area, recognising the hierarchy of designations, in line with Local Plan (Part One) ENV4 Biodiversity and geodiversity and other policies within the Plan. 2376 Criterion five should be amended to read ‘Preserve and enhance the Agreed, policy text amended. urban spaces between buildings and around the large areas of water in the basins and docks’. 1140 The policy is too centred on the Waterfront Vision area adjacent to the The Recreational Routeways policy of the Local Plan (Part Two) Mersey and the MSC and that it needs to be explicitly extended to the states that developments incorporating or adjacent to canals and Shropshire Union Canal from its exit at the Port as far as the vicinity of waterways will be expected to be protected, and wherever Cheshire Oaks (Bridge 140). This length of canal is currently subject to possible, enhanced, and extended. This policy specifically an initiative by the Canal and River Trust's North Wales and Borders references the Shropshire Union Canal. Partnership designed to produced (by April 2017) an action for improvements to regenerate the canal environs and provide more permeable connections with the adjacent disused, residential and industrial areas. The importance of the canal southwards from the Port should be included in policy EP7. 2807 There is the potential for land allocated in your plan to encroach on HSE The Local Plan (Part Two) included a policy for development in the consultations zones (Site EP7). vicinity of hazardous installations.

Northwich: Questions 15 to 19

N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 399 We consider that the settlement boundary of Northwich should be Settlement boundaries have been addressed through the Local extended to include the site referred to as ‘Land south of Shipbrook Plan Working Group Report – July 2017 Road, east of A553, Davenham’. http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 2640 With reference to the Wincham Urban Village project, we ask the The Wincham regeneration site has been included and specifically Council to amend this Part Two policy to take into account the fact referenced in the Northwich Regeneration policy. Land allocations that, during the plan period up to 2030, our client will be seeking to have been assessed through the Land Allocations Background promote the redevelopment of this land for economic development. Paper which was presented to the Local Plan Working Group in July 2017: http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 2215 N1 et seq. policies recognise that 'development should maximise the Comments noted. opportunity of the river frontage'. I hope these policies will be taken seriously, as the Baron's Quay development has conspicuously failed to do so. There is a real shortage of visitor moorings in Northwich, which new developments should help to remedy. The Weaver is still potentially navigable to sizeable commercial vessels, and policies should ensure that the possible return of commercial traffic is not compromised, but rather encouraged. 2458 Refer to importance of waterways for ecology and biodiversity - refers Noted and agreed – ecology and biodiversity has been added into to policies for the natural environment in emerging neighbourhood the policy text plans but these are not translated into Part Two of the Local Plan and a policy gap may therefore exist. N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2662 The Council’s overall housing delivery targets should be treated as The Local Plan (Part Two) will identify land allocations, where minima and not as a cap on housing numbers, numerous decisions in required, to meet the minimum housing requirements set in the caselaw make this very clear. With that in mind, whilst the Council Local Plan (Part One). The Local Plan supports the development of contends that it can demonstrate a five year housing supply and it additional housing above these requirements where the policies of remains confident that the identified housing figures can be delivered the plan are met. Flexibility in the level of sustainable housing over the Plan period, we suggest that there must still be a qualified development that can be delivered in the borough will be provided recognition by the Council in the LLP2 that, in accordance with through the following mechanisms: Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the  Small and large windfall sites, particularly previously ‘Framework’) planning applications for housing development should developed land within settlements in line with the over be considered in the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable arching strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) that may come development. forward throughout the plan period;  Regeneration areas as identified in the Local Plan (Part Two) that promote mixed use redevelopment opportunities that support the inclusion of new dwellings;  Housing and mixed use land allocations designated through emerging Neighbourhood Plans;  Rural exception sites for affordable homes to meet identified need(s);  Brownfield Land Register (BLR).

Housing and employment allocations in Northwich are considered in detail in the Land Allocations Background Paper – July 2017.

2663 Request that the Council revise the line of the Settlement Boundary as Settlement boundaries have been addressed through the Local drawn around the town of Northwich so that it includes the subject Plan Working Group Report – July 2017 site at no. 240 Manchester Road, Lostock Gralam, Northwich. http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 2235 Requested that the Northwich Settlement boundary, under policy N1 Settlement boundaries have been addressed through the Local and Map Change 7, is amended to follow the logical boundary of the Plan Working Group Report – July 2017 N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response A556 to the south of the site (School Lane, Hartford), as shown on the http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments enclosed Proposed Amendment to the Northwich Settlement .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 Boundary Plan. 1610 Tata (Winnington Works) - anticipated that early phases of the Comments noted. proposed Winnington Works re-development project could come forward during the plan period set out within the Local Plan (Part One). Should re-development of the Winnington Works Site come forward in advance of the adoption of the Transport Strategy then any application for re-development will need to demonstrate that any additional traffic can be accommodated within the existing or proposed highway network. 2378 We note and welcome reference to utilising the town’s waterways for Noted and agreed – policy text amended to state to encourage recreation and tourism purposes’. It could however be usefully effective re-use of previously development land associated with clarified in the supporting text that not all development adjacent to the waterways; the waterfront is to be restricted to purely recreation and tourism uses. This would be consistent with paragraph 111 of the NPPF in terms of encouraging effective re-use of previously development land. 2319 Some clarity would be good on what is meant by ‘sustainable’, which Sustainable development is defined within policy STRAT1 of the occurs several times but is not clear what this actually means in Local Plan (Part One). ‘Sustainability’ in the context of Northwich context. It is open to much interpretation. also reflects the potential of developing previously developed land to meet future housing requirements in Northwich. 2027 Concern that the provisions of Policy N1 could unnecessarily restrict The Local Plan (Part Two) will identify land allocations, where otherwise sustainable and acceptable development proposals from required, to meet the minimum housing requirements set in the coming forward within the Northwich settlement area. In the Local Plan (Part One). The Local Plan supports the development of presence of a minimum housing target for the town and the borough additional housing above these requirements where the policies of as a whole, we particularly question whether the policy provides the plan are met. Flexibility in the level of sustainable housing sufficient scope for delivering further sustainable development to development that can be delivered in the borough will be provided meet the future housing needs of Northwich and its adjoining through communities. the following mechanisms: • Small and large windfall sites, particularly previously developed N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response land within settlements in line with the over arching strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) that may come forward throughout the plan period; • Regeneration areas as identified in the Local Plan (Part Two) that promote mixed use redevelopment opportunities that support the inclusion of new dwellings; • Housing and mixed use land allocations designated through emerging Neighbourhood Plans; • Rural exception sites for affordable homes to meet identified need(s); • Brownfield Land Register (BLR). Housing and employment allocations in Northwich are considered in detail in the Land Allocations Background Paper – July 2017. 1887, 1886 Davenham, as one of the most sustainable settlements within the The housing requirement for Northwich (including site allocations) Borough, can and should accommodate more housing growth during was addressed through the Local Plan Working Group Report – July the plan period, beyond the settlement boundary and within the open 2017 countryside. It is imperative that the development plan and http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments Neighbourhood Plan facilitate this growth, particularly given that .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 paragraph 3.6 of the consultation document states that “Northwich will provide a key focus for development in the east of the Borough.” The Davenham and Whatcroft Neighbourhood Plan can also be Davenham is not restricted by Green Belt policy unlike other viewed via the following link: settlements within the Northwich Urban Area, and the consultation http://consult.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/portal/cwc_ldf/np/ document confirms at paragraph 3.2 that the Green Belt will be “maintained.” 1824 4.4 and 4.5 – We would ask you to include/take into account Moulton’s Neighbourhood Plan area does not form part of the Moulton’s emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Northwich policy area, therefore has not been referenced under We believe this should read to the ‘North and West of Northwich’ not Policy N1. just North as re-development of the TATA site in Lostock looks The reference in the policy at para 4.7 is to the TATA Winnington potentially to be developed in the near future. Works site, not the works at Lostock. Often, by default, land intended for employment purposes becomes Details of the employment land allocations in Northwich and their N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response warehousing. The latter generally has a far greater adverse visual proposed end use can be found in the Land Allocations Background impact and results in significantly lower employment levels. There Paper 2017 and the detailed allocations policies of the Local Plan needs to be clarity as to what kind of commercial development is (Part Two). intended on any particular site. 1488 This proposal is good as far as it goes, however decisions as to what is Comments noted. The capacity issues at Winnington Swing Bridge needed should be taken by the local planning committee (after are noted and acknowledged at para 4.7 of policy N1. appropriate consultation with local people), entirely on the basis of what is needed locally, and permission should not be granted unless developers provide any necessary infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, amenities (schools, shops, surgeries etc). Local planning should never be over-ridden by central government. Thought must also be given immediately to taking pressure off the historic Winnington Swing Bridge, by building a new crossing from Winnington to Barnton. 1462 Wording should be stronger on development of brownfield land which Policy STRAT5 of the Local Plan (Part One) reflects the significant should take priority. No planning applications should be approved potential for the regeneration and reuse of previously developed unless infrastructure is in place to accommodate the extra traffic. land in Northwich to meet future housing requirements. The Solutions to Winnington Bridge should be part of the Transport principles of STRAT5 are followed in policy N1, including realising Strategy. the high potential for regeneration and reuse of previously developed land. The Council is preparing the Northwich Transport Strategy, to support future development in Northwich as set out in the Local Plan (Part One). Initial phases of work have been completed. The Strategy and options will be subject to further consultation during 2017, with the final strategy anticipated being approved in early 2018. 1420 Suggested amendment to the Local Plan Part 2 - Proposed Settlement Settlement boundaries have been addressed through the Local Boundary For Davenham at Davenham Cottage, London Road, Plan Working Group Report – July 2017 Davenham. http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 N1 – Northwich Settlement Area Question 15 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1263 The approach set out in this policy is supported, in particular the Landscape, local green space and green infrastructure are emphasis on requiring that development proposals at Winnington addressed through policies of the Local Plan (Part One) (ENV2 and Works demonstrate that additional traffic can be accommodated on ENV3). the highway network. The Northwich Neighbourhood Plan is looking to identify and We would suggest adding to the bulleted list in the policy narrative, designate important local green space which should be protected. “Prevent the loss of green open spaces”. Suggest an addition to the explanatory text at paragraph 4.3 to emphasise the importance of local green space which will be identified in the Neighbourhood Plan. 1330 Lower Marston/Lower Wincham. No reference can be found to the Higher Marston and Higher Wincham are located outside of the rest of Marston or Wincham. settlement boundary to which policy N1 relates. The settlement gap between Northwich and Wincham lies within 2nd issue - Settlement gap between Northwich and Wincham and the Green Belt where policy STRAT9 of the Local Plan (Part One) Marston. would apply. The Council are proposing to designate Key Settlement Gaps, however these are only in areas outside the 3rd issue - We cannot find policy map N5, with reference to The Lion Green Belt. A revised set of policy maps will be produced to Salt Works. support the Publication Local Plan (Part Two) which will show boundaries such as the Lions Salt Works more clearly.

Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2118 Historic England – there needs to be a robust assessment of all the The assessments in the HELAA identify where there are sites where they affect a heritage asset including its setting. Further development constraints on site, including historic assets. The guidance is provided. The SA makes an assumption of the impact HELAA identifies further assessment of these sites may be required without undertaking a heritage impact assessment, taking account of in line with Historic England Advice. A Heritage Impact Assessment primary legislation and NPPF. Allocation of sites for development may has been undertaken on the potential sites carried forward for present better opportunities for the historic environment. assessment from the HELAA. This has been used to inform the site assessments in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 2266, 1264 Transport infrastructure improvements needed around Gadbrook The Local Plan (Part Two) takes account of the emerging Northwich park Transport Strategy. The assessment of sites within and around Gadbrook Park BID group – flagship employment area for the Gadbrook Park has considered potential transport impacts and Borough, however some challenges. Should allocate land to south and mitigation measures. The allocation of additional employment land west in Plan period. in this area will only be possible with improvements to transport Funding required for transport and highways infrastructure infrastructure along the A556, particularly on junctions with the improvements, including link road to bypass the Park and provide a A530 and Gadbrook Rd, combined with a wider package of second access and egress into the business park. transport measures (including pedestrian/cycle links) and Public transport: opportunity to address, mid Cheshire rail campaign mitigation. The potential for a new railway station to serve have published a business case for the reinstatement of a passenger Gadbrook Park will be explored. railway service from Sandbach-Northwich. Business case for a new station at Gadbrook Park. The Weaver Navigation and River Dane are significant environmental The Council notes the comments. The policy on employment land assets in the town. Development proposals alongside or in close allocations should be read alongside other relevant policies within proximity should preserve or enhance the setting – should also apply the Local Plan including; STRAT1 sustainable development, ENV1 to the canals. flood risk and water management, ENV2 landscape and ENV3 green infrastructure. 2129 There is insufficient employment land allocated to meet the Employment land provision for the Borough including each of the employment land requirements for Northwich. spatial areas has been updated through the Land Allocations Background paper (2017) and the Council’s employment monitoring information. This demonstrates that there is sufficient employment land provision to meet the requirements of Local Plan (Part One) policies STRAT2 ‘strategic development requirements’ and STRAT5 ‘Northwich’. 2129 Comments provide a critique of the evidence base, suggesting that The HELAA methodology (paragraph 2.21) sets out the approach to the developable (net) area from the HELAA should be used. calculating development potential for employment uses. The Local Plan (Part One) employment requirement is based on gross site areas and this is therefore used in the employment trajectory in Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response the HELAA. The estimation of net development potential is a guide to determine the level of floorspace that could be accommodated on specific sites and is dependent on the mix/type of uses proposed. 2806 HSE - there is the potential for employment land allocations to The policy on employment land allocations should be read encroach on hazard consultation zones. Advice is provided on the alongside other relevant policies within the Local Plan including; compatibility of development within consultation zones for workplace  Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 sustainable development; allocations (site N2.F; N2.G) STRAT2 Strategic Development; STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT11 Infrastructure; ECON1 Economic growth, employment and enterprise and ECON2 town centres; SOC5 Health and well-being.  Local Plan (Part Two) DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations and DM48 development in the vicinity of hazardous installations. The policy will be amended to reference the links to DM47 new or extensions to hazardous installations or DM48 development within the vicinity of hazardous installations. In line with this policy, new development in the vicinity of hazardous installations will not be permitted if it would result in a significant increase in the numbers of the people being subjected to threshold levels of risk. Advice will be sought from the HSE on specific planning applications/development proposals for within the area. 2460 The policy should require an Ecological Appraisal that meets BS Policy N2 should be read alongside other relevant policies of the 42020:2014 to guide how harm will be avoided, minimised, mitigated development plan with regard to biodiversity and nature or compensated for. conservation. 1612 In the interest of clarity and accountability we would have expected Sites have been assessed through the Land Allocations Background the policy to recognise, by express reference, that other policies and Paper. It is noted that additional employment provision can come allocations within the Plan make provision in part for additional from other sources, particularly regeneration areas as identified in Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response employment uses (e.g. N3). To be an 'effective' plan it should be policy N3. deliverable and flexible to deal with changing circumstances (Tata Chemicals). 1828 New development should have regard to the Davenham and The Council agrees with the comments. The Local Plan (Part One) Whatcroft Neighbourhood Plan which aims to protect landscape states that in the rural area employment land allocations will be character. Any major development of the proposed site (N2.F) for identified through the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and employment land, will inevitably be damaging to the landscape and Detailed Policies or through neighbourhood plans. The Council will have negative impact for wildlife, ecology and the route of the Trent take into consideration ‘made’ or emerging Neighbourhood Plans and Mersey Canal. where relevant to the identification of employment land Should development be inevitable (N2.F) there should be a significant allocations. Further information on this approach is set out in the landscape buffer (at least 15 metres as per our emerging Council’s Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). Neighbourhood Plan) to any residential properties (Pear Tree Farm dwellings) and to the full extent of the Southern boundary of the site to reduce the impact on the open countryside and provide a compensatory wildlife habitat. There should not be access onto Davenham Road. Site specific issues 2129, 2302, N2.F land to the west of King Street Since the consultation on the Local Plan (Part Two) Preferred 2266, 1264 Comments to support or amend policy N2.F land to the west of King Approach, the Government have consulted on a revised route for Street, with suggestions for mitigation: the High Speed 2 railway (Phase 2b route refinement consultation  The Council should consider the wider development of the 2016). The revised route alignment passes through the preferred business park to the south and west of Gadbrook park site under draft policy N2(F). The site has been assessed through  Focusing only on the area to the south of Morrisons would hinder the HELAA and Land Allocations Paper and has subsequently been future transport links discounted.  Development of the whole site could provide new link roads King The Council will continue to engage with HS2 Ltd and with Street / Gadbrook Park and A533 to relieve traffic on A556. landowners/developers to better understand the implications for  Opportunity for new railway station in the future development in Northwich.  Opportunity for pedestrian/cycle paths, particularly tow paths on Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response Trent and Mersey Canal Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations  Reduce boundary to provide adequate buffer and screening to Paper. The Council has assessed reasonable alternative sites and residential properties their potential for employment development. The Land Allocations Background Paper (2017) makes recommendations for the revised employment land allocations for Northwich. The Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT5 Northwich states that Gadbrook Park will be retained and protected for continued employment purposes. It also states any expansion of the employment park will be assessed through the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies Plan. The assessment of sites within and around Gadbrook Park has considered potential transport impacts and mitigation measures. The allocation of additional employment land in this area will only be possible with improvements to transport infrastructure along the A556, particularly on junctions with the A530 and Gadbrook Rd, combined with a wider package of transport measures (including pedestrian/cycle links) and mitigation. The potential for a new railway station to serve Gadbrook Park will be explored. Future development should be informed by a landscape and visual assessment and mitigation. It is therefore essential that any future employment development is taken forward as part of a comprehensively planned approach to mitigate potential impacts. 1865, 2322, N2.F land west of King Street Since the consultation on the Local Plan (Part Two) Preferred 1828, 1458, Comments to object to the draft allocation N2.F land west of King Approach, the Government have consulted on a revised route for 1396, 1177, Street: the High Speed 2 railway (Phase 2b route refinement consultation 1390, 1029,  Unacceptable impacts on the countryside, increased urban sprawl 2016). The revised route alignment passes through the preferred 1025, 792 and impact on residential amenity site under draft policy N2(F). The site has been re-assessed through  Would exacerbate existing traffic problems on the A556 / A530. the HELAA and Land Allocations Paper and has subsequently been Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response Requires a new link road. No public transport provision discounted.  Ecological impacts on Marshalls Gorse  Flood risk  Warehousing capability elsewhere (e.g. Midpoint 18)  Preference should be to use previously developed land before greenfield sites.  Pollution: noise, air, groundwater, light  Effect on landscape character and conservation area  Effect on tourism and leisure 2860, 2129, Comments have been made to provide information on the following Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations 2867, 2864 draft allocations; Paper. This site has subsequently been discounted from further  N2.A Land at Weaver Navigation / Runcorn Road consideration.  N2.B Land to the south/west Lostock Gralam Railway  N2.C North of Leicester Street The Council notes the comments. The policies map will be updated  N2. D. Land at Denton Drive Industrial Estate alongside the Publication Draft Local Plan.  N2.E land within Gadbrook park - Map 7 of the preferred options does not clearly identify the plots that make up the 5.8ha. Undeveloped retained employment allocation.  N2.H Land at Cheshire Business Park.  N2.G. Land at Lostock Works House. 2129, 2641, Comments provided in relation to the following alternative sites; Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA (2017) and Land 2303, 1396,  Land to the south west of Gadbrook Park Allocations Paper (2017). The Land Allocations Paper (2017) makes 1177, 1390,  Redevelop Station Road / Leicester Street recommendations for the employment land allocations in 1029, 1025,  Old Warrington Road, Northwich Northwich. 3  Longwood and Octel The Council will liaise with Cheshire East as part of the Duty to Co-  Midpoint 18, Cheshire East operate to understand the future development needs of  Land to the east of King Street Middlewich. Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response  Thor, Wincham 1264, 2129 Land to the South West of Gadbrook Park Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Comments provided to support the allocation of this site. Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment The land to the south west of Gadbrook Park is immediately available land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes and can successfully accommodate a range of employment uses. The provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough- site has high prominence on the A556. There are limited on-site wide requirements. constraints with the entire site located within Flood Zone 1 and existing trees are capable of retention. The site is in single ownership and flexible for a range of business uses and occupiers. A masterplan has been provided for the wider area to demonstrate how this parcel could sustainably fit within the existing development at Gadbrook Park as well as deliver the Highways Improvements. The site is promoted only for employment development (previous options proposed residential but this is no longer part of the development). 2641 Land at Chapel Street, Wincham Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Thor Specialities UK have acquired land in the area and would like to Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment expand their successful operation over the coming years – thereby land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes delivering more local jobs and making a major contribution to the provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough- economy of Cheshire West. This will mean that it will be difficult for wide requirements. the Wincham Urban Village to be brought forward in its current format. Indicative plan provided for potential development parcels. 2298, 2303, Land to the East of King Street Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations 2870 Comments to support this site as an alternative: Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment The site should be considered for inclusion in the Local Plan (Part land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes Two). provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough- Evidence on the demand for logistics and distribution development in wide requirements. the context of the north west market. Policy N2 – Employment land provision in Northwich Question 16: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Note; Additional comments and supporting information have been provided after the preferred approach consultation closed. This addendum information was necessary in view of the Government’s announcement of the revised route of High Speed Rail 2 in November, 2016. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response The site is suitable for extensive design and build options. King Street should be considered as a “Key Opportunity Site” in a location benefiting from excellent national motorway links. King Street is the optimal size to accommodate local and regional large scale industrial and logistics projects. Discussions ongoing with HS2 representatives with a view to establishing further information in relation to the route of HS2 which passes to the east of Northwich. Comments to object to this site as an alternative: Access/transport impacts: Close proximity of the A556/A530 roundabout coupled with the limited site frontage between the roundabout and the Penny’s Lane junction, dictate that direct access from the A556 is not achievable. The limited frontage will also preclude the formation of an access on the A530 corridor, including a left in/left out arrangement, since it will not be possible to accommodate acceleration and deceleration lanes as would be insisted upon by CW&C given that the A530 is a national speed limit road. 2298, 2303 Longwood Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations The site should be considered for inclusion in the Local Plan (Part Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment Two). land allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision for sufficient employment land to meet the borough- wide requirements.

N3 – Northwich Regeneration Areas Question 17 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2873 Promoting the inclusion of land to the south west Gadbrook Park Land allocations have been assessed through the Land Allocations (alternative site) and Land to West King Street. Background Paper which was presented to the Local Plan Working Policy N3 - Based on the highways evidence presented in section 5.10 Group in July 2017: of this representation, policy N3 should be amended to remove any http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments mention of the employment uses being located at Winnington Works .aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 (TATA site). Comments noted. The capacity issues at Winnington Swing Bridge are noted and acknowledged at para 4.7 of policy N1. The Council is preparing the Northwich Transport Strategy, to support future development in Northwich as set out in the Local Plan (Part One). Initial phases of work have been completed. The Strategy and options will be subject to further consultation during 2017, with the final strategy anticipated being approved in early 2018. 2466 3rd bullet point - Should integrate biodiversity of the waterway - Agreed – safeguarding biodiversity and ecology has been added to policy doesn't mention it as a requirement to consider and integrate - the policy. Amend policy 1938 There is no mention of the successor development at Barons Quay Barons Quay is an allocation in the Local Plan (Part One) and both (phaseII). phases are complete. There is no reference in this plan to the key requirement for a new Comments noted. The capacity issues at Winnington Swing Bridge river crossing to support the growth in traffic movement associated are noted and acknowledged at para 4.7 of policy N1. The Council with the redevelopment at Winnington. is preparing the Northwich Transport Strategy, to support future development in Northwich as set out in the Local Plan (Part One). Initial phases of work have been completed. The Strategy and options will be subject to further consultation during 2017, with the final strategy anticipated being approved in early 2018. 1613 Agree with the approach set out in respect of Policy N3 and support Comments noted - The issue of Gypsy and Traveller site provision the fact that the proposed allocation of the key regeneration areas is addressed through the Local Plan Working Group Report – July identified will help the Council to meet their statutory requirements in 2017: the most sustainable locations. We acknowledge that the re-development of the Winnington Works http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/g53 Site would need to address issues relating to transport links, flood risk 19/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Jul- mitigation, public access, appropriate play provision and need for 2017%2018.00%20Local%20Plan%20Working%20Group.pdf?T=10 neighbourhood centre and education requirements. We note the reference made within the Policy explanation to Policy DM19 and the consultants study for traveller sites which identifies part of the Winnington Works Site for the potential to accommodate traveller pitches. A separate response has confirmed that the site would not be available for the use identified. 2379 Given the importance of the Trusts’ assets in proximity to these areas Comment noted. the Trust would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the production of any future development briefs or masterplans for these sites. 1265 The approach set out in this policy is broadly supported, with the Comments noted. Reference to the Gypsy and Traveller provision exception of the part of paragraph 4.15 relating to the provision of on site has been deleted. - The issue of Gypsy and Traveller site traveller accommodation. Background document LEB2-015 Study to provision is addressed through the Local Plan Working Group Identify Potential Gypsy and Traveller, Travelling Show Persons’ and Report – July 2017: Transit Sites identifies Winnington Island on page 70 as a potential http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/g53 permanent site with an “amber” rating. We would suggest that this 19/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Jul- site should not be considered for this purpose for the following 2017%2018.00%20Local%20Plan%20Working%20Group.pdf?T=10 reasons: •Overlooking / Privacy - The site is adjacent to the Grade II listed Winnington Swing Bridge and is visible from the Anderton Boat Lift scheduled monument. It will be overlooked by houses on Wallerscote Island (when complete). •Flood Risk - The whole of Winnington Island is in either Flood Zone 2 or Flood Zone 3. •Industrial Area - Winnington Works is an active industrial site, making it highly likely that travellers would be impacted by noise issues. There is also a question of personal safety in what is a relatively isolated location 868 The Local Plan (Part Two) should not be completed until the Sustrans The Town Council commissioned a report from Survey has been completed in the Northwich area to show the true Sustrans to look in detail at the existing cycling provision effect to the roads infrastructure of the new housing in Winnington; in Northwich which is now complete and suggested a strategy for especially as the Tata site is being redesignated to "Regeneration" improvements. The results of this study have been used to inform without showing any provision for upgrades to the roads the Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan. infrastructure or the single lane bridge over the River Weaver. The possibility of a similar number of new homes being built on the The capacity issues at Winnington Swing Bridge are noted and Tata site would expedentially impact on the current infrastructure and acknowledged at para 4.7 of policy N1. Further to this, the Council with upgrades and pedestrian crossings already in place on is preparing the Northwich Transport Strategy, to support future Winnington Avenue it would seem that there is a need for a spine development in Northwich as set out in the Local Plan (Part One). road through any new housing estate construction to avoid Initial phases of work have been completed. The Strategy and Winnington Hill and Northwich town centre. We are happy to discuss options will be subject to further consultation during 2017, with proposals that should be included in this document to ensure that the the final strategy anticipated road upgrades are shown as a necessity to allow any further being approved in early 2018. developments possible. 778 Active consideration should be given for partial demolition of Weaver Comments noted – the Weaver Shopping Centre redevelopment is Square (section adjoining Watling Street, indoor market hall & south addressed through Policy N3 and the emerging Northwich side of Market Street, south & west of Town square, round to Council Neighbourhood Plan. information centre) and replacement in short term with car parking. The remaining north side of Market Street and east side of Town Square could be retained as existing. This would benefit both the remaining units and the town centre and Memorial Court as a whole. 4 Support the redevelopment of Weaver Square and the Winnington Comments noted - The issue of Gypsy and Traveller site provision works. I believe that the Winnington site specifically could provide a is addressed through the Local Plan Working Group Report – July new gateway into the town centre (With the possible addition of a 2017: new bridge & link to Leicester Street). I also believe that the http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/g53 redevelopment would provide the ideal opportinity to open up the 19/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Jul- rover front with ne pesdestrian and cycle paths. 2017%2018.00%20Local%20Plan%20Working%20Group.pdf?T=10 Due to this development I believe that careful consideration should be given to the potential traveller sites (2 of which are currently listed in this area) as locating traveller sites in this area could hinder any potential redevelopment

N4 – Northwich town centres Question 18 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2330, 1475,  Clearer definition is needed to ensure secondary shopping Secondary shopping frontages have more flexibility and can 1266, 65 streets can contain viable shops change to other A class units if the market requires. This will  Policy refers to frontages but nothing about backs of properties maintain the vitality and viability of the town centre. which are passed via pedestrian linkways to access the main Primary and secondary shopping frontages are a national shopping area and Barons Quay development. designation that is used in the Framework. Barons Quay has  Town centre boundary and primary shopping should include a been designed to link to the rest of the town centre. site on Old Warrington Road and 1-13 Station Road. The town centre boundary has been reviewed for the Local Plan (Part Two) based on recommendations from the Council’s retail consultants who undertook a detailed assessment through the Retail Study 2016. The site submission will be considered through the retail policy background paper that will look at the site in the context of the Retail Study 2016 and planning policy.

N5 – Northwich Town Centre Conservation Area Question 19 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2476 Should integrate biodiversity of the waterway - policy doesn't mention Policies N1 and N3 have been amended to include the requirement it as a requirement to consider and integrate to protect biodiversity of the waterways in Northwich.

2380 The Trust welcomes the recognition given to the waterways in this Noted. policy. 2321 I agree with the approach but inclusion of the canals alongside the The Weaver Navigation and the River Dane are the two water rivers as ‘significant environmental assets’ should be added courses which have been referenced in the policy and are relevant to the town centre and the Conservation Area to which this policy relates.

Winsford: Questions 20 to 21

W1 – Winsford Settlement Area Question 20 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1438 Highlight the close proximity of Winsford to Middlewich and the close The relationship between Winsford and Middlewich is recognised relationship between the towns. Would welcome reference in the in the Winsford Transport Strategy, and this policy supports the policy to the context provided by the Mid Cheshire Development Board delivery of schemes identified in that Strategy. The explanatory (in relation to the initiatives listed in the Transport Strategy and the text to the policy refers to the links with Middlewich, additional relationship with Middlewich). Support the transport initiatives but text has been added to emphasise this point. would welcome more details on implementation and funding. The It is not considered necessary to include reference to links to policy should explain how the Council will work with Cheshire East to Middlewich this in the policy itself as this relates specifically to the deliver these initiatives. urban area of Winsford, as defined by the settlement boundary. The Transport Strategy identifies future transport initiatives and sets a framework for future work on how the individual schemes could be brought forward. Further detail on funding and implementation will be made available as this detailed work is carried out. Specific reference to working with Cheshire East has been added to the text. 2279 Object that the policy does not seek to make changes to the As set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper, the housing Neighbourhood Plan – it should consider whether additional sites requirement for Winsford will be met and exceeded through the should be allocated. The rate of completions in Winsford was low delivery of developable extant planning permissions, sites allocated before the adoption of the NP and there has not been a marked in the Neighbourhood Plan and additional sites identified on the increase since. The Council should consider allocating sites that are in Brownfield Land Register. There is therefore no need to identify the control of a developer and sustainable to meet the housing needs additional land for residential development in the Local Plan (Part of Winsford (no specific site mentioned). Two). 2377 Land rear of 123 Middlewich Road should be allocated for residential Response as above. development (0.63ha). Object to the policy not seeking to make any changes to the neighbourhood plan or allocate additional sites. Part 2 should be considering whether additional sites should be allocated. 2460 Should integrate biodiversity of the waterway - policy doesn't mention An additional bullet point has been added to the policy requiring it as a requirement to consider and integrate developments in Winsford to maximise opportunities to improve W1 – Winsford Settlement Area Question 20 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response open space, create new habitats and to protect and enhance water quality, heritage assets and biodiversity. 2517 Concerned that the policy would not allow for any additional As set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper, the housing development above that allocated in the neighbourhood plan. Would it requirement for Winsford will be met and exceeded through the not be sensible to have a small supply of back up development land in delivery of developable extant planning permissions, sites allocated case any of the land allocations in the NP don’t work out? in the Neighbourhood Plan and additional sites identified on the No alternative options are provided for W1 Brownfield Land Register. Appropriate development of sites within No mention of the precise level of affordable housing that will be built the settlement boundary would be supported by local and in the settlement area. neighbourhood plans policies. There is therefore no need to Radical plan needed to regenerate the town centre. What thought has identify additional land for residential development in the Local been given to loss of parking if buildings in the town centre are Plan (Part Two). demolished for housing? Public transport provision needs to keep pace Affordable housing would be required as set out in policy SOC1 – a with housing development. requirement of 30% on all developments of 10 or more units. It is Concerned about a neglected piece of land adjoining Barlow Drive, difficult to include a specific figure as affordable housing needs to be looked into. requirements will be negotiated on a site by site basis. Lots of constituents concerned about the prospect of a prison, very This policy supports and works with the Winsford Transport unhappy that sites have been suggested without talking to residents. Strategy and Development Framework. These documents set out a Should retain industrial space for employment, not a prison. more detailed strategy for regenerating the town centre and address issues such as parking. The need to examine options to improve parking in the town centre is one of the recommendations in the Transport Strategy (Package 1 – Town Centre Improvements). The need to improve public transport was also highlighted in the Transport Strategy work . The Transport Strategy and Development Framework will form the basis for future work on implementing the objectives of the neighbourhood plan and local plan policies for Winsford. The local plan does not include any proposals for a prison. It does identify land for future employment use. 2577 There is an inconsistency between the Local Plan Part One which As set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper, the housing requires 3,500 units for Winsford and the NP which only allocates requirement for Winsford will be met and exceeded through the W1 – Winsford Settlement Area Question 20 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 3,360. The Local Plan Part Two should make additional allocations to delivery of developable extant planning permissions, sites allocated meet the need identified in the Part One plan. Land for at least an in the Neighbourhood Plan and additional sites identified on the additional 350 homes should be identified (including a buffer of 5%), Brownfield Land Register. There is therefore no need to identify plus a further 500 to cover for any non delivery of allocated brownfield additional land for residential development in the Local Plan (Part sites in the town centre. Two). Land at Westholme Farm and Oakmere Road should be allocated for 650 homes in total. 2686 Land at Darnhall School Lane on the SW of Winsford (6.5ha) should be As indicated above, there is no need to allocate additional land to included within the settlement boundary to enable residential meet the housing requirement in Winsford. There is therefgore no development (184 units). Inclusion of the site would form a logical justification to amend the settlement boundary to include land at extension to the existing settlement boundary and form a natural Darnhall School Lane. extension to the urban area. The inclusion of the site would present a However, the approach taken by the Council is to include sites with ‘rounding’ off of the southern extent of Winsford and would not result planning permission within settlement boundaries. in any significant encroachment into the open countryside, nor lead to The SoS’s decision to dismiss the appeal has now been quashed by the merger of any distinct settlements. The site was subject to a the high court, so the application will be re-determined. If planning previous planning application and appeal which was called in by the permission is granted for the scheme whilst the Local Plan is still SoS. The decision by the SoS to dismiss the appeal was the subject of a undergoing preparation, the settlement boundary will be amended high court challenge. to include the land at Darnhall School Lane.

W2 – Employment land provision in Winsford Question 21: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 9, 69 General support for draft policy W2 The Council welcomes the support for the draft policy. 1934 Employment land allocations in Winsford should be accompanied by The made Winsford Neighbourhood Plan includes an objective to improved highway and transport access to the M6 and Middlewich at improve road links to adjacent towns and investigate ways of junction 18. Take account of opportunities from the Northern Gateway reducing through traffic in Winsford. Policy T4 states that the Development Zone around Crewe. Existing transport links will constrain Council will work with neighbouring authorities to seek improved this opportunity. access to the M6 motorway, which is reiterated in Local Plan (Part W2 – Employment land provision in Winsford Question 21: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response One) policy STRAT 7. 2518 No alternative options are proposed therefore is there any choice but to The Winsford Neighbourhood Plan has already been prepared to accept the approach? reflect the strategic priorities of the Local Plan (Part One).

Rural: Questions 22 to 26

R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2199 Policy R1 does not allocate any sites for residential development. The The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where Explanation for the policy states that there is no need to do this because required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the of “the supply situation in the rural area and key service centres” (para. KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional 6.3). housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also come forward through allocations designated through Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing need. The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in line with recent regulations which will provide a further additional supply of housing sites. The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level of housing completions and future supply with planning permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). 2833 Welsh Water is the statutory sewerage undertaker in the rural key Comments noted – we will continue to liaise with Welsh Water to service centres of Farndon, Malpas, Neston and Tattenhall. The housing fulfil our Duty to Cooperate requirements for the plan period as identified in STRAT 8 of the Local Plan (Part One) has already been met in these settlements through completions and commitments, as such Part 2 of the Local Plan does not contain any further allocations. Welsh Water look to an adopted local plan to provide a degree of certainty that development is going to come forward as our industry regulator Ofwat will not agree investment for unconfirmed growth. Where specific improvements to a WwTW are required in order to bring a development site forward, but are not planned through the AMP, developers can fund the required improvements through planning s106 R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response obligations. Following the delivery of the growth identified within STRAT 8 of the Local Plan (Part One) any further development over and above that already committed may require investment to increase capacity at our WwTWs. We will assess the capability of our WwTW to accept any further unallocated development sites on a case by case basis when planning applications come forward or when sites are allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. 2760 The Rural Growth Board challenges the approach to housing numbers The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) within the plan, it is based on an evidential base that does not consider have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part the Rural Housing Strategy and Action Plan prepared by the Council in One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the September 2011. rural area. This identified a need to increase homes in the rural area by 8,000 new The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the dwellings giving growth of between 12% and 15% across the rural area. Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and The individual settlement figures are not evidenced-based and are not opportunities for new development in each centre as well as based on need and we consider them to be arbitrarily reached in each ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. instance. The approach to the majority of new housing development The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where being directed to Key Service Centres alone could result in those Key required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the Service Centres losing their rural identity. KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional We would urge further consideration to be given to the idea of housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the settlement boundaries and in particular the tension that may develop if a plan are met. settlement boundary is drawn too tightly. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also Para 5.3 states that ‘The rural area is required to provide 4,200 new come forward through allocations designated through dwellings…’ where as the Local Plan Part 1 Policy STRAT 8 refers to ‘at Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites least 4,200 new dwellings’. We would like to see the same wording used adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing ‘at least’, and reflected in that of STRAT 8. need. The Board does welcome the weight given to Neighbourhood Plans and The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in for the abilities for communities to provide additional housing over and line with recent regulations which will provide a further above the numbers identified. This will allow some flexibility to meet additional supply of housing sites. future needs of the rural area. The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level of housing completions and future supply with planning permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). 2744 Green belt around Frodsham should be reviewed – strangling Green Belt is a strategic policy designation that was addressed development through the Local Plan (Part One). The Local Plan Inspector concluded: “…other than at Chester (Wrexham Road), development needs can be met without alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt”. 2551 There is no policy mechanism to consider sites for sustainable The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) development outside the settlement boundaries for the Key Service have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part Centres (including Tattenhall) which, by virtue of a lack of brownfield One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the land and tightly drawn settlement boundaries, are likely to be the only rural area. suitable sites on which to deliver further sustainable development to The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the meet the open market and, importantly, the additional affordable Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and housing needs of the plan area. opportunities for new development in each centre as well as We note that Policy R1 specifies that Neighbourhood Plans are able to ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. promote more development than that set out in the LP Part 1 to meet The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where local housing, economic and social needs. However, in the first instance required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the the policy is not clear that this provision would enable development to KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional come forward outside the settlement boundaries in conflict with policy housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the GBC 1 of the LP Part 2 which would restrict such development, thus plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also making that part of the policy defunct. Indeed, Policy 1 of the Tattenhall come forward through allocations designated through Neighbourhood Plan already allows for proposals involving up to 30 Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites homes within or immediately adjacent to the built-up part of Tattenhall adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing village over the period 2010 to 2030. We consider that the introduction need. of a tightly drawn settlement boundary at Tattenhall, alongside the The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough restrictive approach of the LP Part 2 policies, removes the NP ability to and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level deliver such development. of housing completions and future supply with planning R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Notwithstanding the above conflict of policy with the NP, it is considered permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations that the ability to bring forward development to "meet local housing, Background Paper economic and social needs" should not be restricted to the (2017). Neighbourhood Plan. As set out earlier in these representations, the Cuddington and Sandiway, Frodsham, Tarvin and Tattenhall fundamental principle of the NPPF is for the planning system work on the have been identified as the KSCs where the level of past presumption in favour of sustainable development and to boost the completions and extant planning permissions do not meet the supply of housing to meet local needs. minimum requirement and are the focus for the identification of We consider that the approach taken by the above policies is entirely at land allocations where required. odds with the need to provide flexibility in the planning system. Indeed, In Frodsham there is an identified residual requirement, after we consider that Part 2 of the Local Plan essentially seeks to remove the consideration of extant planning permissions, of 10 dwellings. flexibility that the Local Plan Inspector for the Part One Local Plan sought Since the base date of the latest monitoring exercise planning to install in Policy STRAT8 for the rural areas. Paragraph 141 of the permission for 14 dwellings has been granted which means that Inspector’s report into the Part One Local Plan states: "Although the the Local Plan (Part One) requirement for Frodsham can be met, overall approach to the scale and distribution of housing development in and exceeded through extant permissions. the Rural Area is justified, Policy STRAT 8 is insufficiently clear with The Background Paper concluded that two allocations will be regard to the role of the Key Service Centres and the approach to the provided in Tattenhall to meet the residual requirement of 43 identification of Local Service Centres and their role in accommodating units in this KSC (please refer to the Background Paper for development. The situation in terms of completions and existing details). commitments and the implications for future land requirements is also In Cuddington and Sandiway and Tarvin the calculated residual unclear. References to the figures for housing in the Key Service Centres requirement is less than ten dwellings. There will therefore be no being treated as maxima would result in a lack of flexibility. Main proposed land allocations in these KSCs as it is expected modification MM7 would address these concerns and also make it clear that this small residual requirement will be met through small that the figure for new dwellings in the Rural Area overall is regarded as a infill and redevelopment sites, neighbourhood planning, minimum. It is necessary to ensure that Policy STRAT 8 is effective in community land trusts and exception sites where there is a these respects." demonstrated need (please refer to the Background Paper for The Inspector’s intentions were clear in modifying the Local Plan to make details). it sound by asserting that the quantum of development to be allocated to The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in the Key Service Centres were to be seen as minima figures and that the line with recent regulations which will provide a further Local Plan required flexibility. Part 2 of the Local Plan fails to deliver that additional supply of housing sites. flexibility and undoes the modification required by the Inspector to make R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the Local Plan sound in the first place. The text has been amended to make it clear that through a NP allocations can be made beyond the settlement boundary to provide for development and community infrastructure. 2665 The wording in Policy R1, or at the very least the explanatory text The Local Plan and any NPs set out what is meant by sustainable supporting the policy, should be amended make it clear that where development for the area. NPPF is not part of the Development planning applications propose new housing beyond the Settlement Area Plan and does not have the status of Development Plan. boundary and where the development is found to be sustainable (having No change proposed - The level of development for each of the regard to the three dimensions of sustainable development set out in the KSCs is set out in the Local Plan (Part One) were based on the Framework), such proposals will be considered in the context of policy constraints and opportunities for new development in each set out at the national level. centre as well as ensuring that the strategic housing need was 6.5 The ‘committed’ housing sites identified by the Council are not to be met. viewed as a maximum amount of residential development and the policy The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where text of Policy R1 should be amended to reflect this. required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also come forward through allocations designated through Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing need. The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in line with recent regulations which will provide a further additional supply of housing sites. 2621 We suggest that where development proposals come forward that can Neighbourhood plans can plan for additional development, offer a substantial contribution to community infrastructure, as including community infrastructure. supported by Policy STRAT 2 (Local Plan Part One), more flexibility should The text has been amended to make it clear that through a NP be provided within the next iteration of the Policy and its supporting text allocations can be made beyond the settlement boundary to to facilitate these specific forms of development. provide for development and community infrastructure. Suggested additional wording: Where proposals for development outside of the defined settlement boundary come forward, they should be in line with STRAT 8 in terms of R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response scale and design and should deliver substantive infrastructure that meets an identified need to support growth and create sustainable communities (as set out in paragraph 5.101 of the Local Plan (Part One). 2332 Policy R1 should be amended to provide for “windfall” applications No change proposed - The level of development for each of the coming forward as a result of or separate to any Neighbourhood Plans KSCs is set out in the Local Plan (Part One) were based on the during the plan period which bring forward sustainable development on constraints and opportunities for new development in each sites beyond the settlement boundaries proposed by the Part Two Local centre as well as ensuring that the strategic housing need was Plan where these contribute to the vision and objectives of the Local met. Plan. The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where Any such application would fall to be assessed as to its ability to required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the constitute Sustainable Development (by using the Local Plan and taking KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional account of other material considerations) and only approved where this housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the was the case. plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also Paragraph 6.3 should have the words “at least” added in relation to the come forward through allocations designated through 4,200 new dwellings to be provided in the rural area. Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites Paragraph 6.4 should be amended to include a reference to “windfall” adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing applications and to make the point that where they exist, Neighbourhood need. Plans can respond to “windfall” applications within or on sites well The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in related to the existing settlement development boundary. line with recent regulations which will provide a further additional supply of housing sites. 2409 Draft Policy R1 sets out the detailed policy for the key service centres, The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) including Cuddington and Sandiway and stating that no additional have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part housing sites will be allocated in these areas. The reasoned justification One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the to the policy claims that this is justified because the Council’s evidence rural area. shows that minimum housing requirement targets under Policy STRAT 8 The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the of the Local Plan (Part One) have been satisfied and there is not an Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and additional requirement for more housing in these areas. The council’s opportunities for new development in each centre as well as approach as set out in the draft policy fails to meet the relevant tests of ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. soundness since it is not: The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where • Positively prepared – failing to recognise that additional housing in the required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response key service centres over and above the minimum ‘requirement’ can play KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional an important role in maintaining their long term vitality and viability. housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the With regard to Cuddington and Sandiway in particular, the policy fails to plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also recognise the importance of supporting investment into Blakemere come forward through allocations designated through Village that will assist in securing its long term sustainable future as an Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites important source of local jobs and its contribution to the rural economy. adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing • Justified – in that the Part One policy (STRAT 8) does not set a cap on need. the quantum of housing development in each of the key service centres, The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough as a consequence, over-provision is not a possible outcome. The Council’s and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level evidence [in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2013), Rural of housing completions and future supply with planning Regeneration Strategy (2011) and draft Vulnerable and Older People permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Accommodation Plan (2016)] identifies a need for new housing for young Background Paper (2017). people, families and older people to respond to unaffordable house Cuddington and Sandiway, Frodsham, Tarvin and Tattenhall prices, and population imbalance. While the requirement for specialist have been identified as the KSCs where the level of past elderly person’s accommodation is also set out in policies STRAT 1, SOC 3 completions and extant planning permissions do not meet the and SOC 5 of the Local Plan (Part One) and under draft Policy DM15 of minimum requirement and are the focus for the identification of the Local Plan (Part Two), the restrictions imposed by tight settlement land allocations where required. boundaries in the key service centres and the wording of Policy R1 In Cuddington and Sandiway and Tarvin the calculated residual provide a constraint that is not justified either by strategic policy or requirement is less than ten dwellings. There will therefore be no evidence. proposed land allocations in these KSCs as it is expected • Notwithstanding, recognition in the policy and its supporting text that that this small residual requirement will be met through small Neighbourhood Plans may identify more development than set out in the infill and redevelopment sites, neighbourhood planning, Part One Local Plan to meet local housing, economic and social needs is community land trusts and exception sites where there is a welcomed. In the case of Cuddington and Sandiway, this also requires demonstrated need (please refer to the Background Paper for amendment to the settlement boundary to include Blakemere Village. details). • Effective – exclusion of Blakemere Village from the settlement boundary fails to recognise the importance of that site to the rural The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in economy and an integral part of Cuddington and Sandiway line with recent regulations which will provide a further • Consistent with National Policy – by failing to positively promote additional supply of housing sites. opportunities for rural employment, economic growth and visitor / R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response tourism facilities, boost the supply of housing, and adequately meet all housing needs. 2511 I believe that developments in rural communities should respect the The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the character and nature of the local environment whilst balancing the needs Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and of local enterprise. Sites for rural development for business are crucially opportunities for new development in each centre as well as important as well as the provision for small business parks in rural areas ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. to support rural development. Impacts on local infrastructure such as The Local Plan (Part Two) will include a policy for the provision of schooling and Doctors surgeries rarely seem to feature prominently in new community facilities and also protect existing facilities. local council decision making, despite clear guidance that impacts on In line with policy STRAT8 and ECON1 of the Local Plan (Part local infrastructure should be considered. One), proposals for new or improved community facilities and Sustainable rural housing development is important, as many local services within key service centres will be permitted where communities need appropriately sized affordable starter homes for they are of an appropriate scale to serve the local community. individuals and families as well as more one-bedroom properties for the elderly. Constantly building large executive homes is good for the market in Cheshire, but does not meet the needs and aspirations of our young people who wish to stay routed in our communities. We cannot risk destroying the unique character and charm of our rural communities to simply become a commuter belt for our nearby cities. I believe that a far better balance can be reached, but that even when building sustainable homes this must be balanced against the infrastructure needs of the local community. More use needs to be made of developer contributions to strengthen our key public services like our doctor’s surgeries, schools and community assets. We need to identify and protect sites for school expansion, taking the longer view making sure that schools that are anticipated to grow will have the space to and this will have not been sacrificed to developers. The same applies to our playing fields, public green spaces and doctor’s surgeries. If demand is to grow this needs to be monitored closely and provision made for it. 2412 Four of the rural key service centres lie within the Cheshire Sandstone The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as Ridge, and a further three on the edge of the area. The Trust supports amended) state in section 122 that: A planning obligation may R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response appropriate and sensitive regeneration of these centres to ensure vibrant only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the and thriving local communities. It agrees that this should be through the development if the obligation is – use of previously developed land; minimising the loss of greenfield land a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning and protecting the countryside. Where development and regeneration is terms; allowed within and adjacent to the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge, a planning b) Directly related to the development; and charge should be levied to support the upkeep, enhancement and c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the enjoyment of the special features and qualities of the area. development. As such, it would be very difficult to request Section 106 contributions relating to the upkeep, enhancement and enjoyment of the Sandstone Ridge. It would not be possible to include this within the CIL Regulation 123 list and therefore use CIL to pay for it, as it would not be considered to be infrastructure that contributes to the delivery of development set out in the Local Plan. 2285 Policy R1 sets out the policy for Key Service Centres. It states that the The text has been amended to make it clear that through a NP settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres have been drawn to allocations can be made beyond the settlement boundary to reflect the strategy of the local plan to support an appropriate level of provide for development and community infrastructure. new development in the rural area. The final paragraph of policy R1 states: “Neighbourhood Plans can promote more development than set out in the Local Plan (Part 1) to meet local housing, economic and social needs”. 3.2 We consider a change needs to be made to clarify that such sites can be located outside the defined settlement boundaries. For example, Policy 1 of the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan is permissive of developments of 30 dwellings or less on land adjacent to the settlement boundary. For consistency between the two plans, the policy should be altered as follows: “Neighbourhood Plans can promote more development within or adjacent to the defined settlement boundaries than set out in the Local Plan (Part 1) to meet local housing, economic and social needs”. R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2009 Just because the housing requirement of ‘at least 4,200 dwellings in the The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the rural area’ can be identified through completions and commitments it Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and does not mean that the Council should not consider the provision of opportunities for new development in each centre as well as additional housing allocations in sustainable locations through the Part ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. Two Local Plan. There remains a significant amount of unmet affordable The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where housing need which can only be met by providing further housing. required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the The key settlements, such as Frodsham, Helsby and Tarvin, will KSCs. effectively see no further growth across the plan period once the The Local Plan supports the development of additional commitments have been delivered. Flexibility is needed and that the housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the Local Plan Part Two should be providing for some growth in these plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also sustainable locations. The Local Plan Part Two needs to be flexibility to come forward through allocations designated through ensure that it can respond to changes in circumstances over the plan Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites period. adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing Welcome the final paragraph of Policy R1 which states that need. Neighbourhood Plans can promote more development than that set out The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in Local Plan Part1. This is a positive approach and is in line with national line with recent regulations which will provide a further guidance. additional supply of housing sites. 2091 Tarporley Parish Council is pleased to see references to and alignment Any further expansion of key service centres will be considered with Neighbourhood Plans. The Council welcomes that there is no need through a Local Plan review and this will also assess for further housing to be designated on greenfield sites or in the open infrastructure capacity and improvements. countryside. The Plan places emphasis on urban area regeneration and includes significant transports projects to ease the congestion around Chester but ignores the needs of the rural area which have had to accommodate large growth in houses with little or no improvement to infrastructure. As such policies should be included that address these shortfalls. Policies covering the expansion/improvement of infrastructure in the rural areas at the same time as the increase in dwellings (rather than months or years later) are required. Policies covering the phasing of number of developments in rural villages, R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response over longer periods of time, rather than the current growth over 3-5 years, would be welcomed. Settlement boundary page 42 of the maps - Tarporley Parish Council supports the settlement boundary as proposed. 1663 Do not agree with the approach of not allocating further sites for The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) development within the key service centres. Paragraph 6.2 of the have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part Consultation Document refers to Policy STRAT 8 setting out the level of One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the development for each key service centre. Paragraph 6.3 states the rural rural area. area is required to provide 4,200 new dwellings and given the supply The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the position there is no need to make additional allocations through the Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and Local Plan (Part Two). opportunities for new development in each centre as well as These statements are not consistent with Part One of the Local Plan as ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. the Council now appear to be treating the housing numbers for the rural The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where area as a maximum. Policy STRAT 8 actually states: “Within the rural area required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the provision will be made for at least 4,200 new dwellings” KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional It is perfectly clear from the Local Plan (Part One) Inspector’s report that housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the housing figures should not be treated as maximum figures which is why plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also the Inspector considered it necessary to introduce ‘at least’ to the policy come forward through allocations designated through wording. This is confirmed in paragraph 141 of the Inspector’s Report on Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites the Examination into the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing One) Strategic Policies: “ References to the figures for housing in the Key need. Service Centres being treated as maxima would result in a lack of The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough flexibility. Main modification MM7 would address these concerns and and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level also make it clear that the figure for new dwellings in the Rural Area of housing completions and future supply with planning overall is regarded as a minimum. It is necessary to ensure that Policy permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations STRAT 8 is effective in these respects.” Background Paper Concerned that the Council is doing exactly what the Inspector sought to (2017). avoid and by treating the figures as maxima, sufficient flexibility is not Cuddington and Sandiway, Frodsham, Tarvin and Tattenhall being built into the plan. For instance, there is no certainty that all of the have been identified as the KSCs where the level of past consented schemes will be delivered. Therefore, it is imperative that the completions and extant planning permissions do not meet the R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Council build in some flexibility for this scenario and consider further minimum requirement and are the focus for the identification of settlement boundary adjustments. One option would be to provide an land allocations where required. uplift of 20% for each of the key service centres as this will still be In Frodsham there is an identified residual requirement, after consistent with Part One of the Plan which sought to provide the consideration of extant planning permissions, of 10 dwellings. minimum level of development. This will ensure a more effective supply Since the base date of the latest monitoring exercise planning of deliverable land for the medium to long term and is consistent with permission for 14 dwellings has been granted which means that the recommendations of the Local Plan Expert Group. the Local Plan (Part One) requirement for Frodsham can be met, Furthermore, the Council is also missing the opportunity for planning for and exceeded through extant permissions. future growth opportunities by selecting the most sustainable sites. It is The Background Paper concluded that two allocations will be quite clear that the settlement boundaries for the key service centres provided in Tattenhall to meet the residual requirement of 43 were drawn a number of years ago and should be fully reviewed as part units in this KSC (please refer to the Background Paper for of this process. This will also assist to maintain a healthy supply of details). housing land. In Cuddington and Sandiway and Tarvin the calculated residual Whilst Neighbourhood Plans can allocate land for additional requirement is less than ten dwellings. There will therefore be no development, many are choosing not to which means it is important for proposed land allocations in these KSCs as it is expected Part Two of the local Plan to ensure a suitable level of land is made that this small residual requirement will be met through small available for development. This will help to maintain a healthy supply of infill and redevelopment sites, neighbourhood planning, land for housing. community land trusts and exception sites where there is a It is also suggested that some reserve sites are identified for future demonstrated need (please refer to the Background Paper for development. These could represent land that can be brought forward to details). respond to changing circumstances, such as an authority failing to meet The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in its 5 year supply. In accordance with the Local Plan Expert Group line with recent regulations which will provide a further recommendations, this should be an additional 20% of the overall supply. additional supply of housing sites. 1888, 1867 Under Policy STRAT8, Cuddington and Sandiway is expected to deliver a The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) “minimum” of 200 dwellings. This is not a cap, and the Local Plan have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part Inspector made this clear in his Inspectors Report for Part One. Any One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the housing development over and above this figure, which constitutes rural area. sustainable development, should therefore be viewed positively. The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the At this time, based on the Council’s Housing Land Monitor 2015-16, it is Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and understood that Cuddington and Sandiway has extant planning opportunities for new development in each centre as well as R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response permission for 185 net new dwellings either built, under construction or ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. consented, leaving a shortfall of 15 against the “minimum” 200 The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where requirement. Another 17 dwellings previously benefited from planning required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the permission across the settlement, but expired without being KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional implemented. housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the These figures differ to those included in Table 3.1 of the Draft Site plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also Allocations Background Paper published by the Council, which itself come forward through allocations designated through identified a shortfall of 3 dwellings up to the minimum 200 target. Only Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites by including a small sites allowance of 20 was the 200 unit figure met. adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing However, given that the majority of those permissions which expired need. without implementation comprised small sites, together with the fact The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough that there are no sites identified within the HELAA, then this small sites and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level allowance is itself considered highly unrealistic. of housing completions and future supply with planning Cuddington and Sandiway forms part of the wider “Rural Area.” permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Paragraph 5.3 of the consultation document confirms that the Rural Area Background Paper (2017). must provide 4,200 new dwellings, which is a minimum figure. It goes on Cuddington and Sandiway, Frodsham, Tarvin and Tattenhall to state that 2,050 dwellings have been completed, and a further 3,039 have been identified as the KSCs where the level of past units benefit from planning permission. On this basis, it is the Council’s completions and extant planning permissions do not meet the position that there is no need for any housing allocations in the Rural minimum requirement and are the focus for the identification of Area. land allocations where required. Our Clients objects to this approach. Firstly, it does not represent positive In Cuddington and Sandiway and Tarvin the calculated residual planning as advocated through the National Planning Policy Framework requirement is less than ten dwellings. There will therefore be no (“NPPF”). Secondly, the Council is adopting the position that all extant proposed land allocations in these KSCs as it is expected housing permissions will come forward. In reality, there is no certainty that this small residual requirement will be met through small whatsoever that this will be the case. In Cuddington and Sandiway for infill and redevelopment sites, neighbourhood planning, example, 6 sites which benefited planning permission have failed to community land trusts and exception sites where there is a come forward, and those permissions have now expired. As outlined demonstrated need (please refer to the Background Paper for above, between them these sites had planning permission for 17 details). dwellings. Further, the 2016 SHELAA does not identify any sites within the The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response settlement boundary which could come forward during the plan period. line with recent regulations which will provide a further As such, there is a clear need to allocate land around Cuddington and additional supply of housing sites. Sandiway to meet future housing needs, and this should comprise land in the open countryside to the south of Chester Road controlled by Ashall Homes Ltd. It is the role of the Part Two Local Plan to adjust the settlement boundary and release additional housing land. In the event that the Council does not release land outside the settlement boundary, there will be no robust strategy in place through which the Council can be confident that it will achieve the minimum 200 dwellings requirement in the settlement. Accordingly, in the very least the Cuddington and Sandiway Neighbourhood Plan needs to allocate land to meet the minimum housing requirement for the settlement up to 2030, and based on the HELAA this will require greenfield land release. Our Client does welcome the recognition at paragraph 5.4 that Neighbourhood Plans can promote more development than the Local Plan (but not less), and would encourage the Council to liaise with the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Groups to ensure that Neighbourhood Plans are positively prepared. 1511 In principle, this could be acceptable, but it is imperative that there is a Comment noted – the strategy of the Local Plan is to bring need / appetite for the development and it is not just house building for forward sustainable development in the rural area which serves the sake of it, if there is a potential adverse affect on the local local needs. Communities can also identify issues and the needs community of the communities through Neighbourhood Plans. 1439 Middlewich, identified as a Key Service Centre in the Cheshire East Local There has been ongoing engagement between Cheshire West Plan, has the highest amount of employment land proposed of all towns and Cheshire East to determine whether any allocations are in the Cheshire East Local Plan. Up to 70 hectares of the undeveloped needed to meet development needs in Cheshire East as per area of 121 hectares available at Midpoint 18 is expected to be STRAT 7 of the Local Plan (Part One). There is no associated developed by 2030, with the remainder in reserve to be released when demand for housing from Cheshire Fresh and the Local Plan (Part required. Furthermore, there is existing planning approval for 37,298 Two) does not to seek to allocate this site. sq.m. of employment-led development across an additional 19 hectares located mainly within Cheshire West and Chester and immediately R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response adjacent to the boundary. This development (Ref: 13/03828/FUL) known as ‘Cheshire Fresh’ and features a livestock auction centre to replace obsolete facilities in both Cheshire West and Cheshire East (Beeston and Chelford), together with linked food and agriculture-led businesses and ancillary leisure and retail facilities. The draft Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part 2) or draft Cheshire East Local Plan currently makes no explicit reference to this or the associated demand for additional housing in the vicinity. 1434, 562 These representations demonstrate that the emerging Local Plan (Part The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the Two), at present, is unsound. In particular it will not meet the Cheshire Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and and Chester West Council’s ("CWaC") economic objectives for growth opportunities for new development in each centre as well as unless additional housing land is allocated. Specifically, additional ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. housing sites should be identified in Key Service Centres and Local The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where Service Centres to meet the economic growth of each settlement and to required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the protect their existing facilities and potentially promote new facilities. KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also come forward through allocations designated through Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing need. The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Register in line with recent regulations which will provide a further additional supply of housing sites. The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level of housing completions and future supply with planning permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017).

R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 574 There appears to be little mention of the ' Self Build and Custom Policy DM14 refers to the Councils self build register and Housebuilding Act 2015' or self build register. This becomes a problem proposes the provision of self build plots on new housing here as there is a need to identify land either through the SHLAA or the development. House Land monitor report. There is also little mention of land owners Green Belt is a strategic policy designation that was addressed offering land for development for such initiatives - ie will dispensation be through the Local Plan (Part One). The Local Plan Inspector given to achieve the goals and targets for this act? will controls be put in concluded: “…other than at Chester (Wrexham Road), place to stop it being abused by large scale developers, and will CWAC development needs can be met without alterations to the encourage self builders on low incomes to take up potential development boundaries of the Green Belt”. opportunities? Will CWAC offer subsidised/free advice for them to help reach their targets? The sad (and continuing) reality is that any land within the areas mentioned above that is given planning or outline permission often results in that land being simply being priced way beyond the reach of low income families. I would encourage a pragmatic approach that includes development in selected greenbelt areas - particularly for group self build developments under the tutelage of CWAC. this could be use to promote the uptake of green technologies and radical 'low profile' designs. 527 Future expansion of Tarvin, Tarporley, Cuddington and Sandiway as Key Any further expansion of these key service centres will be Service Centres and dormitory villages for Chester will be severely considered through a Local Plan review and this will also look at restricted by the inadequacy of the road network into Chester, i.e. the whether the highway infrastructure can accommodate new A54 and A51. development. The A51 from Tarvin to Vicars Cross is congested in both directions between 7am and 7pm every day of the week. On summer Saturdays and Bank Holidays, westbound traffic becomes gridlocked back beyond Duddon Heath. CWaC needs to provide funds in its Plan for a new dual carriageway by- passing this section. In the shorter term, it should investigate installing a roundabout or other measures at Stamford Bridge which could ease matters to a degree. Many of the recently introduced speed restrictions R1 – Key Service Centres Question 22 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response on these roads are questionable as to whether they increase safety; they certainly increase congestion and the daily commute. CWaC should also investigate ways of discouraging the volume of HGVs on the A51, which is single carriageway throughout West Cheshire and is not designed for this volume of traffic. Many of the lorries are in transit from Eastern Europe to Ireland and bring nothing to the area except noise, litter, pollution and increased congestion on the roads. 492 Objection to Policy R1 - We object to the wording of Policy R1 as it does The level of development for each of the KSCs is set out in the not allow for rural growth supported by the NPPF. The NPPF is clear that Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints and plans should be flexible and allow rapid responses to changing opportunities for new development in each centre as well as circumstances (paragraph 22). Without a clear mechanism to address any ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. future shortfalls in housing delivery, the plan would not be able to react The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where positively to changing circumstances. The policy should be reworded to required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the be flexible in its approach and provide a fallback position should it KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional become apparent that the KSC is failing to deliver an appropriate level of housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the new development. plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also The explanatory text does not make clear that the housing requirement come forward through allocations designated through in the rural area is a minimum. This should be made explicit in the policy Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites wording and in its explanatory text stating that the rural area should adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing provide " at least" 4,200 new dwellings, in line with Policy STRAT 8 of the need. The Council will also be producing a Brownfield Land Local Plan (Part One). Register in line with recent regulations which will provide a further additional supply of housing sites. The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level of housing completions and future supply with planning permission as at 1st April 2017) is set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017).

R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response General The settlement boundaries are not deemed to be sufficiently The settlement boundaries for the Key Service Centres (KSCs) Comments flexible to respond to any change in circumstances, nor does it reflect have been drawn to reflect the strategy of the Local Plan (Part the fact that the housing figures for the Key service One) to support an appropriate level of new development in the Centres are a minimum requirement and not a maximum target. rural area. The level of development for each of the KSCs is set We would urge further consideration to be given to the idea of out in the Local Plan (Part One) were based on the constraints settlement boundaries and in particular the tension that may develop if and opportunities for new development in each centre as well as a settlement boundary is drawn too tightly. ensuring that the strategic housing need was met. The Local Plan (Part Two) will set out land allocations where required, to meet the minimum housing requirements in the KSCs. The Local Plan supports the development of additional housing beyond these requirements, where the policies of the plan are met. In the Key Service Centres, housing may also come forward through allocations designated through Neighbourhood Plans and through small rural exception sites adjacent to the KSC where they meet an identified local housing need. The Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement for the borough and the residual requirement (taking into consideration the level of housing completions and future supply with planning permission) is set out in the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). Cuddington and Sandiway, Frodsham, Tarvin and Tattenhall have been identified as the KSCs where the level of past completions and extant planning permissions do not meet the minimum requirement and are the focus for the identification of land allocations where required. In Frodsham there is an identified residual requirement, after consideration of extant planning permissions, of 10 dwellings. Since the base date of the latest monitoring exercise planning permission for 14 dwellings has been granted which means that the Local Plan (Part One) requirement for Frodsham can be met, R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response and exceeded through extant permissions. The Background Paper concluded that two allocations will be provided in Tattenhall to meet the residual requirement of 43 units in this KSC (please refer to the Background Paper for details). In Cuddington and Sandiway and Tarvin the calculated residual requirement is less than ten dwellings. There will therefore be no proposed land allocations in these KSCs as it is expected that this small residual requirement will be met through small infill and redevelopment sites, neighbourhood planning, community land trusts and exception sites where there is a demonstrated need (please refer to the Background Paper for details). The methodology for drawing the settlement boundary line around the KSCs is explained the Local Plan Woking Group Report 24/07/2017. Cuddington Amendment to the settlement boundary to include Blakemere Village. No change to the settlement boundary proposed for Sandiway and Exclusion of Blakemere Village from the settlement boundary fails to and Cuddington which is defined by the Green Belt to the north Sandiway – recognise the importance of that site to the rural economy and an of the settlement and the A556 to the south. 2409, 1888 integral part of Cuddington and Sandiway. It is noted that the settlement boundary for Cuddington and Sandiway has now been amended to reflect the consented housing development at Golden Nook Farm off Ash Road. All policy designations remain unchanged. Accordingly, Cuddington and Sandiway remains constrained by Green Belt to the north, east and west. Accordingly, any future development should be directed to the south of Chester Road as open countryside. Farndon - Site to the south of Townfield Lane in Farndon represents a highly No change to the settlement boundary of Farndon proposed. 1663 sustainable site for future housing development. The site has strong boundary features and would therefore integrate well with the adjoining housing without compromising the wider landscape. The site R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response extends to approximately 2 hectares and could accommodate between 40 and 50 new homes together with associated infrastructure. Frodsham – A further review assessing the Green Belt around KSC would be No change to the settlement boundary of Frodsham. Frodsham is 2009, 1351 required to support any further boundary amendments. defined by the Green Belt. Green Belt is a strategic policy Communities like Frodsham and Helsby are unduly constrained by their designation that was addressed through the Local Plan (Part present Green Belt boundaries - and as such the opportunity for a One). The Local Plan Inspector concluded: “…other than at Green Belt boundary review for the entirety of the North Cheshire Chester (Wrexham Road), development needs can be met Green Belt should be considered during the lifetime of this plan. without alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt”. Helsby – Support for settlement boundary in respect of Helsby but would be No change to the settlement boundary of Helsby. Helsby is 2009, 219 potentially concerned about any proposals to extend it. Communities defined by the Green Belt. Green Belt is a strategic policy like Frodsham and Helsby are unduly constrained by their present designation that was addressed through the Local Plan (Part Green Belt boundaries - and as such the opportunity for a Green Belt One). The Local Plan Inspector concluded: “…other than at boundary review for the entirety of the North Cheshire Green Belt Chester (Wrexham Road), development needs can be met should be considered during the lifetime of this plan. without alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt”. A further review assessing the Green Belt around KSC would be required to support any further boundary amendments. Kelsall – The Kelsall settlement boundary shown on the policies map is slightly at The settlement boundary for Kelsall has been drawn to reflect 2426, 43 variance with the settlement boundary proposed in the Kelsall & the boundary in the ‘made’ Kelsall Neighbourhood Plan. The Willington Neighbourhood Development Plan. To avoid confusion and Examiner’s Report for the Kelsall NDP considers the issues for the elimination of doubt, when considering planning applications in associated with the settlement boundary and can be viewed via the area, it would be preferable that the settlement boundary on the the following link: policies map was the same as that in the neighbourhood plan. http://consult.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/portal/cwc_ldf/np Amend the settlement boundary at Green Lane Farm, Green /kelsall_willington_pub Lane, Kelsall. Include land north of Chester Road, Kelsall.

Malpas There are no amendments to the Malpas settlement boundary No change to the settlement boundary of Malpas beyond an proposed. update to include a planning commitment (as of April 2017) to the south of the settlement. Neston – We contend that the settlement boundaries for Neston should No change to the settlement boundary of Neston. Neston is 452, 2580 be adjusted to incorporate the existing housing on Hinderton defined by the Green Belt. Green Belt is a strategic policy R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response Road, which forms a continuous line of development on both sides of designation that was addressed through the Local Plan (Part the highway to the Chester High Road. One). The Local Plan Inspector concluded: “…other than at Raby Park Road, Neston is an obvious site for allocation to deliver up to Chester (Wrexham Road), development needs can be met 380 homes. It is recommended that the Council part-allocate for without alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt”. development of 200 homes in this plan period and safeguard the rest for future development of 180 homes to ensure the permanence of the Green Belt boundary beyond this plan period. Tarvin - A further review assessing the Green Belt around KSC would be No change to the Tarvin settlement boundary proposed. The 2373, 2258, required to support any further boundary amendments. boundary is defined by the Green Belt to the north and west of 2105, 1368, Several representations received in supports of the retention of the settlement. 1342, 1308, the greenbelt land adjacent to Townfield Lane and that only land to the 1245, 562, East of Tarporley Road should be considered for any 205, 1169, future development / change in settlement boundary. Support or the 1128, 613 retention of Townfield Lane and the bridle path behind Crossfields as the settlement boundary on this side of the village. The boundary has been drawn very tight around the current Tarvin. The Eastern boundary line should follow the public footpath (Tarvin FP18) from Tarvin churchyard south to the intersection with white lane immediately to the north of Brown Heath Farm and for the line to then move back across to Tarporley Road. Include land to the west of Tarvin – Crossfields. Tattenhall – In order to meet the requirement for any additional housing The settlement boundary for Tattenhall has been drawn to 2694, 2551, Tattenhall Parish Council would ask that consideration is given include two proposed housing allocations at: 2285, 2531, to moving the line of the settlement boundary to include the  Land west of Ravensholme and 492, 494 brownfield site of the Old School / Tattenhall Centre.  Land rear of 68-84, Castlefields The settlement boundary should be made more flexible and The approach to the selection of the housing allocations in allow for sustainable housing sites adjoining the settlement Tattenhall can be found in the Housing and Employment Land boundary to come forward to meet this identified need for Allocations Background Paper 2017. housing in Tattenhall. Objection to the settlement boundary of Tattenhall as shown on R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response the policies map. No settlement boundary work has been undertaken for Tattenhall to assess the "different roles and character of different areas" referred to in paragraph 17 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Detailed evidence should be prepared by the Council to understand the settlement boundary of Tattenhall, as opposed to the approach proposed by the Part Two Local Plan which is not supported by a clear evidence base. Tarporley – Land to the east of High Street Tarporley – settlement boundary No change to the settlement boundary of Tarporley beyond an 2401, 1663, should be amended to allow for the allocation of the site for a update to include a planning commitment at land to the rear of 2018, 1208, foodstore and a public car park that could support the operation of 32 and 32A High Street (to the west of the settlement). 249h Tarporley Village Centre. Land to the east of High Street. The eastern portion of this site is Land at High Street, Tarporley - In light of the outcome of the included within the settlement boundary. Council’s challenge of this appeal decision, we trust this boundary will now be made permanent. Should the Council seek to make further boundary adjustments to either build in sufficient flexibility or reserve land for change in circumstances, the sites at Brickfield Farm represents a highly sustainable location for future development. Land surrounding Brook House and The Garth, Eaton Lane should be included within the village boundary and be subject to policy STRAT8 such that development of an appropriate scale and design which would conserve the settlement's character and setting and should be allowed. Support for the settlement boundary as proposed. Settlement boundary should be amended to allow additional land to come forward and to review the merits of a mixed residential/community scheme on land to the rear of the Rising Sun, High Street. Extend the Settlement Boundary of to include the built elements of Arderne Home Farm. R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response Question 104/105 (Key Service Centre Boundaries) Tattenhall – Tattenhall – should be revised to take account of a land interest to the Tattenhall – The settlement boundary for Tattenhall has been 2292, 2281, land rear of Greenlands. drawn to include two proposed housing allocations at: 2366 Land to the rear of Greenlands – site (subject of planning application  Land west of Ravensholme and 12/02352/OUT) should be included within the settlement boundary  Land rear of 68-84, Castlefields Land west of Ravensholme – proposed settlement boundary is The approach to the selection of the housing allocations in tightly drawn, except for extant schemes, and does not support Tattenhall can be found in the Housing and Employment Land an appropriate level of development for Tattenhall or provide sufficient Allocations Background Paper 2017. flexibility. The settlement boundary is drawn very tightly around the village and excludes part of what is currently the built environment of the settlement. In the event all three current planning appeals are dismissed, additional land necessary to meet the housing shortfall will need to be found beyond the settlement boundary. The Part Two should identify a preferred site and include it on the Policies Map as a “reserved site”. A review of the current draft settlement boundary shows that the most logical and sensible location for such a reserved site is on land to the north east corner of the village (north of the current Smithfields site). Helsby - Confirms that the sites in the Mere’s Edge area (around the Tesco) No change to the settlement boundary of Helsby. Helsby is 2195 should be regarded as commitments. Given the consents, the blue ‘R1 defined by the Green Belt. Green Belt is a strategic policy Key Service Centre’ boundary should incorporate that entire area designation that was addressed through the Local Plan (Part currently shaded green. One). The Local Plan Inspector concluded: “…other than at Chester (Wrexham Road), development needs can be met without alterations to the boundaries of the Green Belt”. Tarporley – It is noted that the land to the rear of the Rising Sun is proposed No change to the settlement boundary of Tarporley beyond an 2410, 2000 to be retained an open countryside, although a large swathe of update to include a planning commitment at land to the rear of the land is also to be positioned within the designated Tarporley 32 and 32A High Street (to the west of the settlement). Conservation Area. This parcel of land offers greater development potential for a mixed residential development, which could include R1 – Key Service Centres Settlement Boundaries ID Summary of issue raised Council response provision of additional community planning gain. Brickfield Farm – should the Council seek to make further boundary adjustments to either build in sufficient flexibility or reserve land for change in circumstances, this site should be considered for inclusion within the settlement boundary. Farndon -  Townfield Lane – should the Council seek to make further boundary No change to the settlement boundary of Farndon proposed. 2000 adjustments to either build in sufficient flexibility or reserve land for change in circumstances, this site should be considered for inclusion within the settlement boundary.  Land at Crewe Lane – the site should be included in within the settlement boundary as it would represent a logical extension to the settlement which would have a rounding off effect of the built form, defined by defensible boundaries.  Land north of Monument Place Employment Park – the site should be included within the settlement boundary as a logical extension to the existing employment park. There is additional land available to the south of the existing Monument Place Employment Park that could provide further development opportunities for the rural area, if the Council require additional land. Tarvin –  Land off Church Street should be included within the settlement No change to the Tarvin settlement boundary proposed. The 2084, 2177, boundary. boundary is defined by the Green Belt to the north and west of 2088  The settlement boundary along Townfield Lane and the bridleway the settlement. behind Crossfields should not be changed to include any other land.

Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2695 In order to meet the requirement for any additional housing The Tattenhall Centre has been assessed through the HELAA. consideration should be given to moving the line of the settlement Further information on this is provided in the Housing and boundary to include the brownfield site of the Old School / Tattenhall Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Centre. And if the boundary is extended as proposed specific mention is made that any development must be in line with the Policies of the Tattenhall & District Neighbourhood Plan and that two developments taking place side by side will not be permitted. Please note that in Policy 6 of the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan there are several pieces of protected green space that have been included in the SHLAA / HELAA and the Parish Council would not wish to see these developed under any circumstances. 2552 Meeting the Needs of Tattenhall - The Draft Site Allocations Background The housing requirement has been assessed as being 43 for Paper identifies a minimum residual requirement of 24 dwellings at Tattenhall. Further information on how this has been calculated Tattenhall; notwithstanding the extent of completions and is set out in the Report to Local Plan Working Group on 27th commitments set out above. In addition to the above, the paper also Februray 2017 and the Housing Land Monitor 2017. sets out a small site allowance of 20 dwellings at Tattenhall which, for It is agreed that this figure is not a cap on development. It is the reasons set out above, we consider should be removed from the proposed that land be allocated to meet this requirement, small Council’s identified supply. As such, we consider that the residual sites are anticipated to come forward within the village which will requirement for housing at Tattenhall is a minimum of 44 dwellings add further to the supply. over the plan period. As explored in more detail below, it is important to note that this is the minimum requirement for development at The care home has been assessed as part of the housing supply Tattenhall as set out within LP Part 1 and should not be seen as a cap figure. Part of the site has been identified as C2 and part as C3. on development. This will be kept under review as the scheme is built out. In addition to the above, it is worthy of note that the Council’s Housing Land west of Ravensholme is proposed to be allocated to meet Land Monitoring Report includes the development of Older People part of the housing need in Tattenhall. Further information on housing at Frog Hall Farm, Frog Lane, Tattenhall [Site Reference: the site assessment process is set out in the Housing and TAT/0006/H] within the supply. We note that the monitoring report Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. does not classify this housing as C3 dwelling houses and the inclusion of A revised settlement boundary is proposed that incorporates the development within the housing supply is something our client’s proposed allocations to meet the outstanding housing questioned at appeal; we consider it to be a C2 residential use. If the requirement. This will enable the provision of additional development of some 95 units was removed from the claimed supply affordable housing within the village. for Tattenhall the residual requirement would rise to 139 dwellings. The Council has provided a lack of evidence to justify its position in including this site and other potentially C2 uses within the supply; this Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response should be addressed within its evidence. We consider that the Local Plan should allocate additional land for housing development at Tattenhall. For reasons examined in great depth as part of the appeal at Land west of Ravensholme we consider that our client’s proposal for 68 dwellings represents sustainable development to meet the residual needs of Tattenhall and should be allocated for housing development. Notwithstanding the need for additional land allocation at Tattenhall we consider that the LP Part 2 as drafted proposes a far too restrictive approach to development at the Key Service Centres generally that will prevent sustainable sites from coming forward to meet local housing needs. We consider that, in that regard, the LP Part 2 is at odds with the approach of the NPPF. Tt is recognised within the Local Plan that there is a significant need for affordable housing across the Plan area which, in part, can be met through the delivery of new housing at Tattenhall. It is considered unlikely that proposed Policy DM13 is likely to deliver significant affordable housing within the rural area outside development boundaries. With regard to the above, save for additional allocations at Tattenhall, it is considered that any further housing development to meet the needs of Tattenhall (which we consider to be at least 44 dwellings) will need to be delivered outside the settlement boundary on greenfield sites in the open countryside. 2334 BEC owns land which can provide a site (s) to meet any requirement for The suggested sites have been assessed through the HELAA, additional housing in Tattenhall (delivered in accordance with the further information on this is provided in the Housing and Neighbourhood Plan) in the event that all three appeals pending Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. decision are dismissed. Plans are provided at Appendix 1 to identify It is proposed that land to the north of Smithfields (Castlefields) available land as follows: be allocated for residential development post 2025, if monitoring Plan X: Land to the north of Smithfields extending to 2.02 hectares. demonstrates that the housing requirement has not been met Plan Y: Land adjacent to the Tattenhall Outdoor Centre extending to through completions, allocations and developable commitments. Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 0.75 hectares. Plan Z: Land to the North of Frog Hall Farm extending to 5.01 hectares. This land is within the ownership of BEC and can be made available to host the development of new housing as and when required. We recognise that the land put forward will exceed the requirement but feel it helpful to offer alternatives. 1668 By the use of existing brownfield sites, permission being granted to The plan is supportive of reuse of brownfield sites in sustainable convert existing buildings and reference to DM13 locations, appropriate conversion of existing buildings and provision of affordable housing on rural exception sites. However, there remains a need for further development in Tattenhall which may not be delivered in full through these sources. It is therefore proposed to allocate two greenfield sites for development which accords with the neighbourhood plan, to enable the housing requirement to be met in full. 2287, 2292 There is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall that should The need to meet the additional housing requirement for be met through the determination of planning applications or the Tattenhall through land allocations is acknowledged. The allocation of land. outstanding requirement has been assessed to be 43. Further As set out in the 2013 SHMA, there is an annual net shortfall of 714 information on how this has been calculated is set out in the affordable dwellings throughout CWAC and a specific annual need for Report to Local Plan Working Group on 27th Februray 2017 and 23 affordable homes in Tattenhall from 2013/14 to 2017/18. the Housing Land Monitor 2017. The Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan states that “affordability remains a It is proposed to allocate land to meet this outstanding key housing issue for Tattenhall there is a compelling case to meet local requirement, which will assist in meeting affordable housing targets for affordable housing provision”. Land to the rear of need. However, land allocations must take account of the Greenlands, will significantly contribute towards meeting this need, policies in the made neighbourhood plan, which restrict which could not be met if the 30 dwelling limit in the TNP is applied development of sites to 30 dwellings. rigidly. The planning application for land to the rear of Greenlands has STRAT2 of the Local Plan (Part One) seeks to deliver a minimum of now been dismissed at appeal, but the site has nonetheless been 1,100 dwellings per annum. However Policy SOC1 then seeks qualifying assessed as part of the HELAA on the basis of its potential to meet sites to deliver 30% affordable housing. Therefore the local plan will the outstanding housing requirement for Tattenhall. Further only deliver 330 affordable homes if that minimum requirement is met information on this assessment is provided in the Housing and and all sites deliver 30% affordable housing. This is just over half of the Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response identified need in the Council’s evidence base and therefore opportunities on sites to deliver further housing is a significant benefit. In addition, the requirements in STRAT2 and STRAT8 are minima and therefore higher levels of development would not be contrary to plan. STRAT8 identifies “at least” 250 dwellings at Tattenhall. Table 3.1 of the Allocations Background Paper states that the remaining requirement is at least 24 houses. Even if this figure was correct, assuming all the commitments are deliverable, the appellants evidence to the Inquiry at Tattenhall was that the 95 units at Frog Hall Farm should be removed and therefore increasing the minimum residual requirement. Finally, higher order settlements such as Chester and Northwich have their own constraints such as Green Belt so additional development at the Key Service Centre, which is the next tier down is not at odds with the spatial strategy. Land to the rear of Greenlands, Tattenhall - A proposal for up to 137 dwellings including public open space, access and associated works is currently at appeal and awaiting determination. The site area is 6.3 hectares. It comprises one large underutilised agricultural field (Grade 3b) which is laid to grass and used for grazing purposes. The site is regular in shape, relatively flat with a gentle slope from north to south towards a watercourse (Keys Brook) which forms the southern boundary of the site. To the west are open fields and to the north is a farm track/driveway. The development would be accessed off Tattenhall Road. The footpath along Tattenhall Road is proposed to be extended together with connections made to the existing footpaths. A new bus stop and shelter is to be provided to both sides of Tattenhall Road. The development seeks to provide a mix of housing types and tenure in accord with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework. Areas of public open space are illustrated within the development. This is illustrated to include an equipped play area. This is also intended to Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response maintain and enhance the ecological corridor along the brook. The benefits that this development can bring forward for affordable housing is that it can: •Deliver new houses on a sustainable site at a Key Service Centre; •The housing requirements in STRAT1 and STRAT8 are minimum requirements: •The proposal would deliver 35% affordable housing which would assist in meeting affordable need in the area and would deliver up to 48 affordable homes. The affordable homes can be delivered through a comprehensive and planned development with well-planned open space and linkages. This is unlikely to be achieved through piecemeal developments of 30 dwellings by separate landowners. •The appeal proposal is appropriate in scale and design to conserve Tattenhall’s character and setting and accords with STRAT 8. •the Tattenhall Neighbourhood Plan is permissive of new developments adjacent to the village and places no restriction on the number of 30 dwelling developments that can be approved; and •As the development is for up to 137 dwellings within the control of one landowner and with an option to a local developer who fully intends to deliver the site should planning permission be granted. The number of houses proposed would also deliver other benefits through financial contributions to public transport, open space and existing footpath links which would not impact on the viability of delivering 35% affordable housing. In the light of the significant need for affordable housing in the Borough and at Tattenhall specifically, the provision of up to 137 new homes, 35% (48) of which are affordable would play an important social role in supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community and is a social benefit. 1609, 1116, There are still outstanding planning applications in Tattenhall requiring Agree. The appeals have been determined and it is now clear 917 determination. (With the Secretary of State for determination). that there is a modest outstanding housing requirement for Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Tattenhall should accommodate their own pro-rata share of Rural Tattenhall of 43, which should be met through additional land Housing development requirements as all the other Key Service Centres allocations. have done. 494 There is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall. The Local The housing requirement has been assessed as being 43 for Plan Part 1 includes a minimum target of at least 250 dwellings for Tattenhall. Further information on how this has been calculated Tattenhall over the plan period . The latest HLM sets out how since the is set out in the Report to Local Plan Working Group on 27th start of the plan period only 33 houses have been completed in Februray 2017 and the Housing Land Monitor 2017. Tattenhall. As such, over a quarter of the plan period has elapsed and the village has provided only 13% of its minimum required homes, It is proposed that land be allocated to meet this requirement, leaving a residual requirement of at least 220 dwellings. This is in small sites are anticipated to come forward within the village addition to the growing need for more affordable homes. which will add further to the supply. Even allowing for forward supply from all of the sites in Tattenhall identified in the Council’s latest HLM (76 dwellings, excluding the care The planning application for land to the rear of Adari, Chester home at Frog Lane), there is still a requirement for at least 144 Road has now been dismissed at appeal, but the site has dwellings in the village on unidentified sites. nonetheless been assessed as part of the HELAA on the basis of The settlement boundary should be made more flexible and allow for its potential to meet the outstanding housing requirement for sustainable housing sites adjoining the settlement boundary to come Tattenhall. Further information on this assessment is provided in forward to meet this identified need for housing in Tattenhall. the Housing and Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. Evidence prepared by the Council (notably its KSC Background Paper, July 2013), demonstrates the suitability and sustainability of Tattenhall to accommodate new development. The Taylor Wimpey site is the most suitable site for development in the village, being located adjacent to the existing built settlement area and within walking distance of the village services, facilities and public transport accessibility. As demonstrated at the application and appeal stages, the site can physically accommodate up to 110 dwellings (including 30% affordable housing) and deliver both social, environmental and economic benefits, without any significant or demonstrable harm (a key test of paragraph 14 of the NPPF). Summary - For the reasons set out above, we object to Policy R1 as it is currently drafted. It does not meet the tests of soundness identified at Question 23 – If there is a requirement for additional housing in Tattenhall, how should this be met? ID Summary of issue raised Council response paragraph 182 of the NPPF and will not result in sufficient housing being provided where it is needed most in the rural area. 71 Yes but only on sites adjoining existing built form and having a clearly Agree that any sites proposed for development in the plan should defined boundary. Road improvements must form part of any proposal be adjacent to the existing built form and where possible have a for major housing sites. clear boundary. The impacts of any proposals on the road network will be assessed in full as part of any planning application, and any required mitigation or improvements will need to be identified. In general, it is considered that the overall level of development proposed for Tattenhall can be accommodated on the highway network.

R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Services and Facilities 861, 656, 650, Great Budworth -currently fulfils three out of the four listed The services and facilities used to assess whether a settlement 906, 1525, characteristics of a Local Service Centre. However it is felt that these should be a local service centre is based on those which are 2369, 2069, characteristics do not fulfil the needs of residents considered to be the most necessary and are identified within the 2159. Rural Rider and Tarporley Shuttle services are deemed to be public National Planning Policy Guidance and the Local Plan; these transport for the purpose of deciding whether a site is sustainable in include a primary school, community hall or place of worship, planning terms, however this is not the case for other rural public house and convenience store or post office. applications. It is accepted that public transport may be limited in the smaller The Rural Rider and Shuttle services – both options offer a time and rural settlements. In line with the Local Plan (Part One) capacity limited number of services to a very small range of settlements that have no access to public transport have not R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response destinations, during a narrow range of times and have very low been identified as LSCs. It is also recognised that reduced service capacities. provision and rationalisation of services has affected many rural Tilston - the shuttle or community bus is no longer in operation which bus routes. used to serve Tilston and is identified in the background papers It is acknowledged that services and facilities within a settlement relating to the Local Service Centre. New post office has opened since may change over time. In line with national guidance the local the original assessments. planning authority will review the relevance of the Local Plan at Burton - There are currently no facilities in Burton, apart from a small regular intervals to assess whether some or all of it need village primary school. No shops, no pub, no post office, no bus. updating. Burton - In terms of services Burton has a place of worship, a The availability of rural bus services has been reviewed community hall and a school but it does not have a convenience shop, (December 2016) by colleagues in Strategic Transport. Bus post office, public house or public transport. Indeed, Burton has not services have been reviewed for all settlements identified had a public bus service since 2013. through the Local Service Centre Methodology paper. Apart from Ashton Hayes- questionable as to whether what is available to the Burton, where services have changed (either lost or gained) they residents of AH does meet the intent of being a Local Service Centre. only relate to settlements where there is only 1 or less other Lower Whitley/Whitley – (excluded) however, bus services operate service or facility in the settlement. This review of bus services along the nearby A559, providing access to Warrington and has therefore not led to any requirement to change those Northwich. settlements which have been selected as local service centres on the basis of access to public transport. Representations received on the level of services and facilities in specific settlements have been reviewed and reassessed as follows: Tilston: Post Office was included as a service within the settlement assessment (January 2016). The review of bus services has confirmed that bus service 41/41A runs through Tilston. Burton: Agreed – the bus service is no longer available in Burton, therefore the settlement will be removed as a LSC (service 274 is timetabled to stop in Burton once a day only and is one way to Ellesmere Port). Lower Whitley/Whitley: The review of bus services has confirmed that there is no bus service running through or in safe and easy R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response walking distance from the settlements. Policy wording and methodology / Levels of development and Strategic Approach to identifying Local Service Centres 520, 1889, Additional housing sites should be identified in Local Service Centres The levels of development, in particular new housing, are set out 1869, 2013, to meet the economic growth of each settlement and to protect their in the Local Plan (Part One) as are the strategy are 2336, 2265, existing facilities and potentially promote new facilities. accommodation new development. The levels and location of 2622, 2436, The ‘appropriate level of development’ has not been brought forward development for the Plan period were examined through the 2615, 2532, and towards the end of the plan period the Local Plan’s borough-wide Local Plan (Part One) which was found to be sound and adopted 2290, 2128. housing requirement will not meet full objectively assessed needs, nor in January 2015. This means the plan would have had to be will it support the anticipated economic growth of the Borough. The found to be positively prepared and meet objectively assessed plan is consequently unsound. housing need. An objective assessment will ultimately need to be undertaken by the STRAT 8 is clear that levels of development are not going to be decision-maker in the determination of any future planning imposed on LSC. It is considered that the local community is best applications to establish what level of housing growth is considered placed to understand the needs of its communities in terms of appropriate in each settlement. supporting local services or meeting a specific housing need as Consider this to be a restrictive policy and not in accordance with the well as understanding local character and distinctiveness. positive approach to sustainable development as set out within Additional allocations in LSC were never going to be required to national policy. Needs to make it abundantly clear that further meet the housing requirement for the rural area and completions sustainable development on the edge of existing settlements will be / commitments in the rural area are well above the 4,200 considered. requirement. The consequence of identifying Local Service Centres should not be to prevent equally appropriate and proportionate sustainable Policy STRAT8 of the Local Plan (Part One) states that proposals development coming forward in settlements that are not included in for new housing development outside but adjacent to Local this classification Service Centre settlement boundaries as identified on the Policies Proposals should be considered on their merits taking into account Map will be permitted where: local circumstances and all material considerations. Policy R2 should be re-drafted to enable development associated with • It is for rural exception housing or a community land trust Local Service Centres to come forward where it will enhance or development where supported by the Parish Council ; maintain the vitality of the (relevant) rural community and constitutes • It is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development sustainable development. Order or a Community Right to Build Order; Policy R2 needs to provide for “windfall” applications coming forward • It is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response during the plan period which bring forward sustainable development on sites beyond the settlement boundaries. This approach is expanded upon in the draft policy R2 (Local The policy states that there are no housing requirements for Local Service Centres) in the Preferred Approach document. Service Centres set out within Policy STRAT 8 in the Part One Local The wording of draft policy R2 is correct in that it mirrors Policy Plan. This is incorrect; there is a requirement for Local Service Centres STRAT8 which states that “there are no housing requirements for it is part of the at least 4,200 dwellings that are not delivered in Rural Local Service Centres as it is considered the local community is Service Centres. best placed to understand their needs in terms of supporting The pressure to redevelop local facilities would be eased by rewording local services or meeting a specific housing need”. Policy R2 to encourage development which is able to deliver services Policy STRAT8 supports the retention and provision of and local facilities as part of a wider scheme. It is recommended that community facilities which is carried forward in policy DM30 of the list of appropriate development types within Policy R2 is extended the Preferred Approach document. Voluntary, community and to include the following: parish groups can also nominate buildings and land for listing by  Development which meets an identified local need; the local authority as assets of community value (ACV). An asset  Development which delivers community services can be listed if its main use furthers (or has recently furthered) This policy is unhelpful in encouraging proposals to come forward that the social well-being or cultural, recreational or sporting interests offer a strategic improvement to community services or an identified of the local community and is likely to do so in the future. community need and would create a more sustainable local centre. Examples could include community centres, libraries, parks, The policy should be reviewed and more positively worded to provide village shops, markets or pubs. flexibility for the location of necessary new housing development in Local Service Centres need to be identified in line with the Part line with Policy STRAT 1. One. It is acknowledged that services and facilities within a Lack of certainty in the current consultation documents on how settlement may change over time. In line with national guidance housing needs can be met in the local service centres the local planning authority will review the relevance of the Local • The approach is too prescriptive; whilst current policy categorises Plan at regular intervals to assess whether some or all of it need the sustainability of the settlement it is essential that it does not act updating. as a limiting factor should rural villages wish to bring development forward, particularly in respect of public transport access. It is repeated that in order to be nationally policy compliant the Local Plan Part Two should be a positive, pro-growth tool. • The Plan needs to be future facing; it should recognise both existing and planned improvements in public transport and community R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response facilities. • There needs to be a much more comprehensive approach in recognising the suitability of rural villages for growth in order to manage decline; flexibility should be included to allow for development which makes a contribution to new and enhanced facilities in settlements which will help in the long term sustainability of the village. • It should be that specific villages which are looking to manage decline should receive a special status whereby comprehensive developments can be brought forward. If a developer is proposing as part of their development, items that on the list, improve sustainability then there should be a presumption in favour of development, this includes a village pub, shop, community building etc. The policy as written does impose what could be perceived as a maximum level of development All Local Service Centres should be considered on their own merits and characteristics rather being limited by a very generic policy. Neighbourhood Planning 2436 The reliance on neighbourhood plans is unclear and uncertain, in The approach to the provision of development in local service particular for settlements and parishes where the neighbourhood plan centres was examined at the examination of the Local Plan (Part process has not yet commenced. One). As set out in policy STRAT 8 of the Local Plan (Part One) 1901 Propose that policy R2 is currently unsound as it results in an there are no housing requirements for Local Service Centres as it unintended impediment where there is no adopted Neighbourhood is considered the local community is best placed to understand Plan. Suggested addition to the policy wording their needs in terms of supporting local services or meeting a “or where there is no made Neighbourhood Development Plan, it specific housing need. Through the identification of Local Service should be proposed through a draft Neighbourhood Development Plan centres this will enable communities through a Neighbourhood which has been subject to consultation)”. Plan to take a holistic approach to meeting their future needs, The last paragraph with its three bullet points should be removed as it providing the flexibility to shape their communities in a planned places too much power in the hands of parish councils. way. Neighbourhood Plans can enable sites to be identified and R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1220 Clarification is needed as to the types of development that would be allocated for housing that will support or enhance local services allowed within inset villages. whilst Plans will also be able to take account of local 1220 By wording policy R2 in the way it is in the draft and only allowing infrastructure constraints. conversion, redevelopment and infill, it does not take account of the Policy STRAT9 of the Local Plan (Part One) lists the types of requirement of policy STRAT8 and the Inspector’s recommendations development which will be allowed on Green Belt locations. in relation to the Part One Policy that the amount of development in In addition to conversion, redevelopment and infill; proposals for Local Service Centres should reflect the scale and character of the new housing development outside but adjacent to Local Service settlement concerned Centre settlement boundaries will be permitted. Such 1829 Too much reliance is placed on Neighbourhood Plans to allocate sites. development will be brought forward through a Neighbourhood 2128 Not all communities can be expected to adopt neighbourhood plans in Development Order or Plan with support of the Parish Council order to determine the amount of development within Local Service and the community who are considered to be best placed to Centres. Consequently, proposals for housing should not be restricted, understand the character of their settlement and the appropriate just because there is not a neighbourhood plan in place stipulating scale of development. development levels. The draft R2 policy cross-references to Green Belt policy that sets 1889 Need to include “or” after the second bullet point ending “……a out appropriate forms of development. Community right to Build Order” to provide greater clarification. The Neighbourhood Planning Bill has recently been published. Ultimately, a rural exception site does not need to be allocated in a Whilst not yet enacted, one of the provisions is for a made Neighbourhood Development Plan before it can come forward, neighbourhood plan that has been through referendum to form as per paragraph 89 of the NPPF, and this Policy should reflect that. part of the development plan for the area (effectively giving full weight to a plan in advance of the local authority’s decision to formally ‘make’ the plan). If this provision is enacted, policy R2, will be revised accordingly. Agree clarification required in relation to new housing on the edge of LSCs Wording change as follows: Proposals for new housing development outside but adjacent to Local Service Centre settlement boundaries as identified on the policies map will be permitted where: It is for rural exception housing and/ or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; or It is allocated in a made through a Neighbourhood Development R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Plan or brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or Community Right to Build Order; (note last two bullet points now combined). Infill Development 1829, 878, Policy R2 seeks to restrict infill development to 1 or 2 dwellings. This Policy STRAT8 of the Local Plan (Part One) includes a definition of 2650, 2336. restriction should be removed as it may not always be appropriate to infill development. This policy was examined and the definition limit development in this way deemed appropriate by the Inspector. For clarification the No explanation is given as to why infill development should be limited definition of ‘infill development’ from the Local Plan (Part One) to two dwellings; if a site has potential for a greater number of will be included in a Glossary for the Local Plan (Part Two). dwellings, then the Policy should not prevent a more efficient use (especially if it would have the added benefit of triggering an Redevelopment of land could be for more than two dwellings affordable housing contribution). within a local service centre although the policy needs to be read Infilling is not defined in the NPPF but appeal cases have assessed in conjunction with Green Belt policy for washed over infilling on the individual merits of each case, rather than seeking to settlements. Redevelopment would include the use of both apply a blanket threshold which does not respond to the scale and greenfield and previously developed land. For clarification the character of each local service centre. definition of ‘redevelopment’ from the Local Plan (Part One) will The Local Plan Part One rightly acknowledges in paragraph 5.22 that be included in a Glossary for the Local Plan (Part Two). rural areas in particular will be required to release greenfield sites for development. Any reliance on previously developed land should be treated with caution, particularly in the rural areas where such opportunities are more limited. The current approach risks placing undue emphasis on previously developed sites, by constraining the capacity of infill development plots. Policy R2 - The wording relating to development within settlement boundaries is indistinct and confusing; what does “redevelopment of land” mean or constitute? What justification is there for restricting “infill” to 1 or 2 dwellings if the site is within the settlement boundary? Green Belt R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 878 With the exception of Policy GBC4, dealing with commercial and Policy STRAT9 of the Local Plan (Part One) sets out the strategic employment sites, there are no Green Belt policies in the Plan. policy for development in the Green Belt and countryside. The 2436, 2523, For those villages washed over by Green Belt where the ability to detailed policies are included with the draft policies under 2536 deliver housing which reflects the scale and character of the village is chapter 7 of the Preferred Approach document policies GBC1-6. constrained by a lack of Green Belt review (Christleton and Guilden The extent of the Green Belt is a strategic matter and has been Sutton). dealt with through the Local Plan (Part One). Affordable Housing 1564 Schemes that can deliver genuinely affordable housing across a range Policies relating to affordable housing provision in the rural area of tenure types should be actively supported and encouraged e.g. are provided through SOC2 of the Local Plan (Part One) and 100% home ownership through intermediate /discounted market policy DM13 of the Preferred Approach document. value housing. Methodology and Options 2594 The Options considered in the Local Service Centre Background Paper The Local Service Centre Background Paper considered Churton included Option 3 which identified Churton as a Local Service Centre. and Saighton in detail, being settlements which only have two Saighton was not identified as a Local Service Centre under Option 3 services and facilities and access to public transport. The but the village had been incorrectly scored in the Appendix to that assessment concluded that Churton did not have either of the Paper as the presence of the village/community hall had been ‘key’ facilities (school and shop) and therefore should not ignored. Under Option 3 in the Local Service Centre Background Paper become a LSC. Saighton was assessed as having a primary school both Churton and Saighton should be identified as Local Service and community hall, however was not considered to have a Centres. We urge the Council to revert to using Option 3 as a basis for clearly distinguishable ‘core’ to allow it to become a LSC. No the Local Service Centres under Policy R2. change. 2494 Stay with the 2015 methodology and the Preferred Option 2 and The need to identify local service centres stems from the include the supported 2015 public consultation responses. requirement to implement the strategy of the Local Plan (Part 1. Only include public transport access where investigation shows that One) Strategic Policies (Part One Plan), which is based on any service is a realistically useable proposition for the employed focusing most new development in and adjacent to the four and children for school attendance. urban areas and steering development in the rural area primarily 2. Identify current infrastructure restrictions to future development to key service centres which represent the most sustainable and establish if they have a CWaC-confirmed improvement action locations in the rural area. Outside of these areas, a limited level plan with a defined completion date within 12 months of the of development will also be brought forward in smaller rural search. If there is no such guarantee then do not include the settlements to be known as local service centres which have R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response affected settlement. adequate services and facilities and access to public transport. 2761 A points-based approach to sustainability (as evidenced by the Local This approach to selecting settlements with a certain level of Service Centre Methodology) ignores the smaller communities and sustainable services and facilities enables new development to hamlets that can provide much needed contributions to growth and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and reduce the need also sustain the very important services that these communities have. to travel. The strategy has been established through the Local 2761 Methodology assumes that the rural area is fundamentally Plan (Part One). unsustainable and that public transport is the only measure of The use of public transport to assess the sustainability of sustainability. This is an incorrect assumption and fails to recognise settlements reflects the strategy of the Local Plan (Part One), the valuable contribution that smaller communities and hamlets can particularly policies STRAT1, STRAT2 and STRAT8. Settlements bring to the growth agenda. with no access to public transport or with access to only one of Revisit the wording in R2 to include a much larger number of the services and facilities are considered to be unsuitable for communities and settlements. The key to this is a revision to the Local consideration as a local service centre. These settlements would Service Centre Methodology with greater weighting given to all have such an inadequate level of existing services that even the aspects and the removal of public transport as a binary test. limited scale of development which would be allowed in local service centres would not constitute sustainable development and would be contrary to national policy and the Part One Plan. Monitoring and Review 2761 The designation of LSC status of a particular location needs to be The assessment of settlements can only take account of the subject to regular review and assessment so that the ability of such situation at the time of the survey although this can be updated areas to accommodate and future development is still considered as the plan progresses to adoption. It should be borne in mind viable. that the intention of the policy on LSCs is to enable services to be 861 The criteria by which communities are designated Local Service supported by the local community through having the Centres are too general and should be reviewed and revised at regular opportunity to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan and be able to intervals during the lifetime of the Local Plan to more appropriately plan for new development. determine whether they correctly reflect current status and relevance It is acknowledged that services and facilities within a settlement for the local community. may change over time. In line with national guidance the local planning authority will review the relevance of the Local Plan at regular intervals to assess whether some or all of it need updating. Transport and Infrastructure R2 – Local Service Centres Question 24 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2137 Transport and infrastructure - Investment is needed to alleviate these Concerns have been raised previously that congestion and issues before any further growth should be considered. LSC’s should infrastructure issues were not assessed when identifying LSCs. be given some level of recognition and investment in the Local This issue is not directly related to the methodology but a Transport Plans for the area to ensure that existing public transport concern as to what designation may mean for a settlement in links between LSC’s and Key Service Centres are not only maintained terms of levels of future development. As previously stated, it is but improved and expanded. not the intention that housing requirements are imposed on 2798 Provision of adequate Local Services facilities may well need further these communities and the types of development that would be investment. permitted (as set out in the draft policy) will be of limited scale unless delivered through a planned approach by the local community. Policy STRAT 8 of the Local Plan (Part One) also states that development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless appropriate improvements can be made. General Comments 2415 Where development is allowed within and adjacent to the Cheshire The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as Sandstone Ridge, a planning charge should be levied to support the amended) state in section 122 that: A planning obligation may general upkeep, enhancement and enjoyment of the special features only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the and qualities of the area. development if the obligation is – a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) Directly related to the development; and c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As such, it would be very difficult to request Section 106 contributions relating to the upkeep, enhancement and enjoyment of the Sandstone Ridge. It would not be possible to include this within the CIL Regulation 123 list and therefore use CIL to pay for it, as it would not be considered to be infrastructure that contributes to the delivery of development set out in the Local Plan.

R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation Additional Local Service Centres Acton Bridge Proposed additional LSC No change - Acton Bridge does not have either of the ‘key’ facilities (school and shop) and is therefore (2159) not considered to be suitable for inclusion as a LSC. Littleton Proposed additional LSC No change – it is considered that Littleton should not become a LSC. The assessment has concluded that (878) Littleton does not have any services or facilities and should not be re-assessed on the basis of its relationship with Hoole/Chester and Christleton as suggested. Churton Proposed additional LSC No change – it is considered that Churton should not become a LSC. The settlement assessment (2594) concluded that Churton did not have either of the ‘key’ facilities (school and shop) which would support its designation as a LSC. Saighton Proposed additional LSC No change - Saighton was assessed as having a primary school and community hall, however was not (2594) considered to have a clearly distinguishable ‘core’ to allow it to become a LSC. Lower Proposed additional LSC No change – Although Lower Whitley/Whitley have been assessed as having access to services and Whitley/Whitley (2159) facilities (3), the public transport provision it is not on a bus route which is in safe and easy walking distance from the settlement (approx 0.9 miles to the A559) Bostock Green New local LSC proposed No change – it is considered that Bostock Green should not become a LSC. The assessment has concluded Village with associated settlement that Bostock Green only has access to one service and facility (pub). The bus services have also been boundary (2076) reassessed which has found that there is no longer a bus service serving the settlement. Bickley Town New local service centre No change - Bickley Town was previously assessed as having no services and facilities. The assessment of proposed with associated bus services in December 2016 has also found that there is no longer a bus service in Bickley Town. The settlement boundary/sites settlement is therefore not considered to be suitable for inclusion as a LSC. (2615) Proposed Sites and Boundary Changes Acton Bridge Site proposed (2362) No change - Using the current methodology, Acton Bridge does not have either of the ‘key’ facilities (school and shop) and is therefore not considered to be suitable for inclusion as a LSC. Aldford Amendment and extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary (2599) sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Antrobus No changes proposed No change Ashton Hayes Amendment and extension to the Ashton Hayes is washed over Green Belt. The proposed site (Village Farm) has planning settlement boundary (1219) permission for the conversion of farm buildings to residential (16/02070/FUL). The rural buildings with planning permission which are distinctly separated from the core of the village by a road. Amend the boundary adjacent to the southern extent of the settlement to accommodate planning permission (14/01865/FUL). Burton (near Settlement boundary considered No change required to the settlement boundary, however Burton has now been removed for Ness) suitable without any subsequent consideration as a LSC as there is no bus provision in the settlement. Service 274 is timetabled to extensions. stop in Burton once a day only and is one way to Ellesmere Port. Childer Thornton No changes proposed No change Christleton Extension to Green Belt boundary No change - The extent of the Green Belt is a strategic matter and is defined in Local Plan (Part proposed (1216, 2333) One) policy STRAT 9. Amendment to settlement No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional boundary to accommodate land at sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in Faulkners Lane (2446) and land off accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Whitchurch Road (Cheshire Cat) Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a (2331) community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Comberbach No changes proposed No change Crowton Include land off Bent Lane in the No change - this site is included within the proposed settlement boundary. settlement boundary (2251) Delamere No changes proposed No change Dodleston No changes proposed No change Duddon Extensions to the settlement No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional boundary proposed to the north sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in west (2176, 204) and south east of accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation Duddon (200). Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. Eaton Extend the settlement boundary to No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional the east to include land adjacent to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in Spinney Cottage (846). accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Eccleston Extend the settlement boundary to No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional the north, east and south (2599). sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. Elton No changes proposed No change Great Barrow No changes proposed No change Great Budworth No changes proposed No change Guilden Sutton Green Belt review promoted. The extent of the Green Belt is a strategic matter and is defined in Local Plan (Part One) policy Suggest amendment to the STRAT 9. settlement boundary to No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional accommodate two sites to the sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in north of School Lane (2523 and accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation 2536). Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Higher Wincham Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate land off Linnards accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Lane to the east of the settlement Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a (1901, 1897). community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Kingsley Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate land at Kingsley accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Cricket Club (2130). Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. Little Budworth No changes proposed No change Mickle Trafford No changes proposed No change Moulton Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate land off Niddries accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Lane (2050) and land at 14, Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a Anthony Drive (1213). community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. No Mans Heath Suggested extension to the The settlement boundary for No Man’s Heath will be amended to align with the boundary R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation settlement boundary to identified in the emerging No Man’s Heath Neighbourhood Plan. This will include land south of accommodate land south of Bickley Bickley Lane (Part2PA_490). Lane (490, 2292) and land at It is not intended to allocate any additional sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Chester Road (2290) (part of which Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which has planning permission for does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs residential – 15/03371/FUL) where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. The part of the site with planning permission is not adjacent to the settlement boundary or built form of the settlement therefore it is not proposed to include this area within the settlement boundary. Norley No changes proposed Amend boundary to follow the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan boundary. Saughall Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate land at the Beeches accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. to the south of the settlement Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a (246). community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. Tilston Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate land off Church accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Road to the south of the Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a settlement (2128) and a rounding community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought off of the settlement to include a forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it site at Church Road (2650). is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. R2 - Local Service Centres - Proposed Settlement Boundary Changes Settlement Proposal/Ref Number Council’s Response/Recommendation Utkinton No changes proposed No change Waverton Suggested extension to the No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional settlement boundary to sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accommodate two land parcels to accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. the north west and north of the Development should come forward at LSCs where it is for rural exception housing or a settlement (2599 and 338) and a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought large extension to the south east to forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it include the original part of is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Waverton (2599). Two further sites Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical are suggested for inclusion in the and natural features. settlement boundary off Moor Lane and Brown Heath Road (338 and 520) Willaston No changes proposed No change

Policy R3 - Employment land provision in the rural area Question 25: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response 1672 Policies should have regard to the content of any Neighbourhood The Council agrees with the comments. The Local Plan (Part One) Plan that exists and proposals include community consultation. states that in the rural area employment land allocations will be identified through the Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies or through neighbourhood plans. The Council will take into consideration ‘made’ or emerging Neighbourhood Plans where relevant to the identification of employment land allocations. Further information is set out in the Council’s Land Allocations Background Paper (2017). 2597 The policy does not apply to general employment development The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside in the rural area (new build, conversions, rural broadband). other relevant policies within the Local Plan, particularly Local Plan Clarification of support for small scale employment development (Part One) STRAT1 Sustainable Development, STRAT2 Strategic Policy R3 - Employment land provision in the rural area Question 25: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response in the rural area beyond allocations. Clarification is sought within development, STRAT8 Rural area and STRAT9 Green Belt and Policy R3 or the explanatory text to make it clear that the Council Countryside. Policy STRAT9 sets out the types of development that would support small scale employment development within the will be permitted in the countryside, in line with the National rural area beyond the site specific allocations referred to within Planning Policy Framework paragraph 28. Specific planning the policy. applications will be considered on their merits, taking account of the development plan and other material considerations. 2620 The policy does not make provision for other sites coming The Local Plan (Part Two) has been prepared in line with National forward for employment land in rural areas, as supported by Planning Policy and takes a positive approach to sustainable new paragraph 28 of the NPPF. Should be more flexible to allow development in the rural area. Where sites have been submitted to alternative sites (e.g. Tarporley). the Council for consideration these have been assessed through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA 2017) and Land Allocations Background Paper where appropriate. The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside other relevant policies within the Local Plan, particularly Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 Sustainable Development, STRAT2 Strategic development, STRAT8 Rural area and STRAT9 Green Belt and Countryside. Specific planning applications will be considered on their merits, taking account of the development plan and other material considerations. In addition the Council also supports the identification of suitable sites in preparation of neighbourhood plans. 221 Detailed policy criteria are provided for sites A and C, but not for The Plan will be amended to provide a consistent approach to site sites B and D - should be consistent. specific policy criteria, for employment land provision in the rural area. 2762 The Local Plan (Part One) policy refers to ‘at least’ 10ha Employment land provision for the Borough including each of the employment land in the rural area. spatial areas has been updated through the Land Allocations Background paper (2017) and the Council’s employment monitoring information. This demonstrates that there is sufficient employment land provision to meet the requirements of Local Plan (Part One) Policy R3 - Employment land provision in the rural area Question 25: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response policies STRAT2 ‘strategic development requirements’ and STRAT8 Rural area. Site specific issues 2246 Monument Place, Farndon (R3.A): The Council welcomes the support for the allocation. The Plan will be Support for the allocation. A Development Statement has been amended to allow for B1 and B2 development in line with the attached which demonstrates the site’s suitability for adjacent business. employment development over the plan period. The illustrative masterplan provided in the Development Statement also clearly demonstrates that the site can be developed in accordance with the draft design principles/ criteria set out in Policy R3 and as such our client has no objection to the proposed wording in this regard. The site is suitable, available and achievable for employment development. The allocation should not be limited to B1 use only – request B2 also, clear market demand. 221 Meres Edge, Helsby (R3.B) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations National Trust request specific criteria to include: Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land  Form and appearance, height, landscape character allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision  New landscaping to reflect form and species for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide  Safeguard and enhance nature conservation requirements. The site is not identified as suitable for residential  High quality building materials to interface with rural aspect of development, however it could accommodate employment Helsby development subject to further site specific assessments as part of Agent/landowner representation: the planning application process. There is evidence of current  This is a historic allocation. NPPF paragraph 22 seeks to avoid marketing activity for the site and there are already compatible the long term protection of employment land. employment uses to the northern boundary. It is considered there  No reasonable prospect of development for solely employment remains a reasonable prospect of employment development within use. The site is promoted for residential uses, or residential led- the plan period. mixed use (with some employment). Development Statement The policy is amended in response to the issues identified in the Land (September 2016) provided for residential or mixed use options Allocations Background Paper and design issues raised through the including an analysis of the site and surroundings, planning consultation. Policy R3 - Employment land provision in the rural area Question 25: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response constraints and opportunities. 2338, 2696 Chowley Oak (R3.C) The Council welcomes the support for the allocation. General support for employment allocation which will continue The Council makes provision for sufficient employment land to meet to be promoted through the Local Plan process. the borough-wide requirements. Clarification is sought on the link to policy T5. The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside Allocations only provide for B use class and do not allow for other relevant policies within the Local Plan, particularly Local Plan economic development in any other form (Part One) STRAT1 Sustainable Development, STRAT2 Strategic Para 6.10 refers to ‘windfall’ applications and the ability of NDPs development, STRAT8 Rural area and STRAT9 Green Belt and to support economic development. Wording and intent is not Countryside. picked up in draft policy R3. Specific planning applications will be considered on their merits, Concerned with wording relating to alternative forms of taking account of the development plan and other material development which will impose unnecessary constraints. considerations. In addition, the Council also supports the A high level of infrastructure, including fibre Broadband, should identification of suitable sites in preparation of neighbourhood be included with robust and well evidence based transport plans. assessments. 1623, 920 Hampton Heath (R3.D) Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Specific consideration should be given to access off the A41 Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land (hazardous layout on the B5069 access road) allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision Specific business on the small rural industrial estate should be for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide limited to a light industrial nature or with a rural association. requirements. This site has planning permission for employment development and is included within the Council’s employment monitor information. 2288, 1573 Additional sites suggested: Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations  Mill Lane, Frodsham (also under GBC4) Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land  ‘Cheshire Fresh’ Middlewich allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision  A56 by the Chester Road, Swing Bridge, Frodsham (green for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide belt) requirements.  Land off Ship Street to M56 (green belt)  Land to the west of the A533, Bostock Green. 2081 Land to the west of A533 Bostock Green promoted for B1 use Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations Policy R3 - Employment land provision in the rural area Question 25: Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed. ID Summary of consultation comment received Council response class,15.5ha) Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land The 4 sites identified in the policy serve the west of the Borough, allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision the rural area to the north and east is deficient in allocated sites. for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide requirements. 2288, 1440 Land adjoining Holmes Chapel Road, Middlewich (Cheshire The policy on employment land allocations should be read alongside Fresh) other relevant policies within the Local Plan, particularly Local Plan The site is alongside the administrative boundary of Cheshire (Part One) STRAT1 Sustainable Development, STRAT2 Strategic West and Chester and Cheshire East Councils. development, STRAT7 Middlewich. STRAT7 states the Council will The site has a planning commitment and there is an intention to work closely and effectively with Cheshire East Council to plan for bring the site forward for employment generating uses. It is sustainable development in Middlewich. Cheshire East has not inappropriate for this to be in an open countryside policy. STRAT9 requested land allocations, or amendments to the settlement designation as countryside is inconsistent with the planning boundary, within Cheshire West and Chester to meet the permission on the site and STRAT7. This should be removed and development needs of Middlewich. replaced with an employment allocation and located within the Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA and Land Allocations SBL for Middlewich. Paper and this makes policy recommendations for employment land Reference to the Cheshire East Local Plan that allocates the wider allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two).The Council makes provision Midpoint 18 site as a strategic employment allocation. for sufficient employment land to meet the borough-wide Development of the site can make a positive contribution to the requirements. employment requirements of both boroughs. 2835 Monument Place, Chowley Oak and Hampton Heath Further consultation will take place with Welsh Water as part of any Welsh Water – comments are provided in relation to the public specific development proposal / planning application. sewer network and public sewerage facilities. The identification of employment land should be read alongside other relevant policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) on water quality, supply and treatment.

R4 – Oulton Park Question 26 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 74 Please define a significant number of dwellings. This has now been removed from the policy.

1575 Agree, but should include a more structured approach to noise The policy has been amended to consider the relevant noise mitigation for residents and local businesses. policy in the Local Plan (Part Two), along with SOC 5, which is concerned with residential amenity. The policy confirms that planning conditions will be attached limiting hours of use if there is an increase of noise level or duration. 2540 Request for an allocation for the proposed BeWILDerwood at Since the preferred approach consultation, BeWILDerwood has Cholmondeley Estate. been granted planning permission. 2763 The Rural Growth Board recognises the valuable contribution of the The policy promotes development relating to motor sports Motor Sport sector to the economy in the rural area. Consideration related development at Oulton Park and recognises the should be given to encouraging inward investment into the motorsport importance of the site to the rural economy, whilst protecting sector in this location and nearby. the surrounding residential and environment.

Green Belt and Countryside: Questions 27 to 33

GBC1 – Sustainable use of land and prudent use of natural resources Question 27 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 222, 253, 709, The policy is generally supported The Council welcomes the general support for the draft policy. 614, 1278, 850, 995, 1129, 1463, 1699, 1603, 1835, 1871, 1896, 1958, 2014, 2106, 2166, 2276, 2342, 2416, 2447 75 Define what is meant by “unacceptable loss of garden land” Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 253 Council should adopt pragmatic approach to land surrounding Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set brownfield elements of sites to maximise delivery of housing. out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 709 Paragraph 3.251 of CDLP should be reinstated Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 575 Clarification of self-build projects within Green Belt Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 850 Third bullet point is not precise – clarification of reference to Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies STRAT 1 and “good accessibility” is needed set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 921, 1044, Further explanation is required on what is meant by “prudent Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies 1624, use of natural resources”. set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 1441 Concerns regarding implications of housing numbers for The boundary around Middlewich follows the administrative Middlewich (Cheshire West plan defines boundary and land as boundary, and relevant development proposals within Cheshire West countryside) will be discussed with Cheshire East as required. 1463, 1476 Would like to ensure bungalows are not lost as too many being Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set replaced with houses out criteria for the development of previously developed land. GBC1 – Sustainable use of land and prudent use of natural resources Question 27 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 1576, 2416 Policy must not constrain opportunities for rural diversification Rural diversification is addressed in other policies in the plan. 1831 Policy is vague and needs definitions such as “necessary” and Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set “unnecessary” out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 1835, 2014, Document should make it clear that housing numbers are a Local Plan (Part One) states that the housing figures for each spatial 2083 minimum. area are “at least”, and the approach to identifying sites is set out in the Housing and Employment Allocations Background Paper. 1835 Policy should allow flexibility as not all brownfield sites will be Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set in sustainable locations out criteria for the development of previously developed land. The revised / new proposed policies are in accordance with the sustainable strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) and the core planning principles set out in the NPPF. 1841, 2395 Policy should include reference to conserving and enhancing Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set the natural environment in accordance with Core Planning out criteria for the development of previously developed land. principles in the NPPF paragraph 17. 1958 Recommend a brownfield first approach to development. Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 1958 Recommend a new policy that provides details of STRAT 9 as The Local Plan (Part Two) should not repeat policies from the Part One there is no Green Belt policy plan. The approach to the Green Belt is clearly set out in the Local Plan (Part One). 2014 Object to the prioritisation of previously developed land, this is Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set not supported in NPPF out criteria for the development of previously developed land. The policies have been drafted in accordance with the NPPF. 2083 Green Belt and countryside should be treated as two very Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set different land designations. The policy has no regard for the out criteria for the development of previously developed land. The sustainable greenfield sites in the rural area revised / new proposed policies are in accordance with the sustainable strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) and the core planning principles set out in the NPPF. 2276 3rd, 4th and 5th bullet points are contrary to the Framework. Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. The revised / new proposed policies are in accordance with the sustainable GBC1 – Sustainable use of land and prudent use of natural resources Question 27 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) and the core planning principles set out in the NPPF. 2342 Clarity required in bullet point 3 in relation to policy T45 Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land. 2417 Concerned about development of garden land. Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set out criteria for the development of previously developed land, and garden land. 2449 Settlement boundaries – suggested amendment at Faulkners Please see Council response to questions in relation to policies R 1 and Lane R 2. 2489 Amend policy to require Ecological Appraisal that meets BS Proposed policy GBC 1 has been deleted and new / revised policies set 42020:2013 out criteria for the development of previously developed land, and garden land. 2521 Policy STRAT 1 should be expanded to reflect Paragraph 49 of The Local Plan (Part Two) does not reconsider strategic issues set out the NPPF – enabling greenfield sites adjacent to settlements to in the adopted Local Plan (Part One) which was found sound, and in come forward in the event of a lack of a five year supply. accordance with the NPPF.

GBC2 – Rural workers dwellings Question 28 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 223, 710, 994, General support for policy No change to policy required 1674, 1604, 1826, 2481 76 Requirement to have run a business for three years for both The policy will be reviewed and amended where applicable to provide permanent and temporary dwellings is not consistent clarity with regards to different requirements for permanent dwellings and temporary dwellings 851 Rural workers should be widened to include other rural Rural workers dwellings will not be restricted to agricultural dwellings activities, and the explanation should be consistent with this. and the policy will be revised to include clear reference to the types of rural workers housing that will be supported. For clarity, the GBC2 – Rural workers dwellings Question 28 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response explanation will be reviewed and amended where appropriate to ensure the policy and explanation are consistent 922, 1045, Need greater understanding and explanation of why a dwelling Rural workers dwellings provide for a specific housing need, especially 1631, 2481 will be and remain affordable in rural areas where affordability is a key issue. A dwelling should only be permitted where it meets an essential rural workers need for housing and the policy aims to support the rural economy through ensuring these houses remain at an affordable cost. 1578 Requirement for an activity to be full- time is overly prescriptive This approach reflects former national guidance and aims to prevent and is not a flexible approach to supporting rural activities the unsustainable development of “grand design” homes in the countryside that do not support rural activities. 1578 Lack of affordable housing / starter homes in the rural area This policy aims to provide affordable essential rural workers dwellings makes situation worse that remain affordable through occupational ties, and legal obligations that retain dwellings as affordable if sold. 1674, 2345 Agricultural activity and ‘rural workers’ requires further The policy will be amended to widen the explanation, and inclusion of explanation and clarity additional rural land based activities. The policy and explanation will provide clarity. 2515 Rural workers dwellings may be required to make a farm Temporary essential rural workers dwellings are permitted in become economically viable and profitable. accordance with the criteria in the policy which could support farm growth and new farming activity.

GBC3 – Replacement dwellings, extensions, alterations and changes of use Question 29 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 711, 993, 1464, General support for policy No change to policy required 1700, 1605, 1822, 2184, 2698 77, 2277, 2289, 10% and/or 30% restrictions are not required / too restrictive The percentages have been retained as a guide for extensions and will GBC3 – Replacement dwellings, extensions, alterations and changes of use Question 29 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2346, 2563 be used to inform appropriate scale and massing of development. No change to policy required 576 Clarification of self-build and custom housebuilding act 2015 The Council will ensure that all of the duties under the 2015 Act are met and further detail will be included in all relevant policies where it is applicable. 852, 1840, References to change of use are in conflict with NPPF and policy The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development 2086, 2277, STRAT 9. PPS7 has been superseded by NPPF and paragraph 55. management policy and is consistent with the NPPF and Local Plan 2293, 2346, Requirements to demonstrate employment use is not feasible (Part One). 2563 should be deleted. 923, 1046, Meaning of “materially larger” and “appropriate” are needed – The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development 1632, 2289 should percentages be used? management policy to provide clarity. The percentages have been retained as a guide for extensions and will be used to inform appropriate scale and massing of development. 1464 Policy does not mention internet ducts to help rural broadband Infrastructure and telecommunications policies are set out in the users development management section of the draft plan. No change to policy required. 2086, 2277, Policies apply blanket approach across Green Belt and The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development 2283, 2563 countryside which is not consistent with NPPF. Policy should be management policy and distinguishes between Green Belt and the split to address Green Belt and countryside in two policies countryside where applicable. The policy refers back to the NPPF to ensure consistency with national guidance. 2086, 2346 Policy fails to acknowledge permitted development rights The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development (which allows for greater flexibility than proposed) management policy taking in to consideration a range of comments Use of incorrect classification which groups all buildings received through consultation, and incorporating elements of GBC 3 together. where relevant. 2286 Policy goes further than the requirements in the NPPF on The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development replacement dwellings relating to the historic environment and management policy and includes criteria for replacement dwellings visual enhancement, which is not necessary that protects the rural character and local distinctiveness where appropriate, and retains suitable rural buildings where possible to minimise visual and amenity impacts and to retain visual amenity. 2346 Not appropriate to exclude all and any harm to rural character. The Local Plan seeks to minimise harm rather than exclude all / any GBC3 – Replacement dwellings, extensions, alterations and changes of use Question 29 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Harm should not outweigh the benefits arising. harm, and is considered alongside any relevant benefits of a proposal. 2419, 2563, Proposals for new build should be of scale, height, quality, Amenity of new development is considered through additional 2746 material type, detailing, grain and density comparable and development management policies. No change to policy requited. compatible with the other buildings in the area, preventing over development. 2492 Protection of protected species not considered in the policy. Proposed policies DM38 and DM39 (Protecting and enhancing the Add requirement for Ecological Appraisal to meet BS natural environment) set out the requirements for appraisals relevant 42020:2013 to specific proposals. No change to policy required. 2563 Policy could confuse openness in relation to the Green Belt , The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development and countryside character management policy and provides clarity on references to Green Belt and the countryside, and cross references to the NPPF 2608 Policy only provides guidance on change of use to residential. The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development management policy and refers only to redevelopment for for residential uses. Alternative policies in the plan will deal with change of use / extensions for non-residential uses 2746 Rural based industries – conversion of rural buildings for The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development employment rather than housing. Access issues – narrow lanes management policy providing clarity on redevelopment for residential uses. Alternative policies are included in the plan that protect / promote economic uses. 2766 Safeguarding economic uses in the rural area is welcomed but The policy has been reviewed and redrafted as a general development there must also be consideration of needs of modern management policy that is focussed on residential uses. The spatial commercial occupiers. strategy of the plan, as set out in the adopted Local Plan (Part One) is to concentrate the most appropriate development in the most sustainable locations i.e. rural economic uses will be supported in the rural area. No change to policy required.

GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2185, 1821, The policy is generally supported The Council welcomes the general support for the draft policy. 1675, 1579, 1279, 992, 712, 224, 78 1847 Policy criteria should not introduce policy beyond NPPF and The policy criteria has been reviewed in the context of NPPF and STRAT9 For example; STRAT9;  ‘preferably less’ is former PPG2 wording - The policy wording has been reviewed and amended to delete  The second and third bullet points are an assessment of ‘preferably less’ in the context of NPPF and STRAT9. the wider impact on openness. NPPF no longer explicitly - The Local Plan (Part Two) provides more detail and local imposes an assessment of footprint and building heights interpretation to green belt policy in Cheshire West. This applies which were previously in PPG2. particularly large scale sites on the edge of the urban area, where there is the likelihood of redevelopment within the plan period. 2493 Amend policy to require an Ecological Appraisal that meets BS The Council notes the comments. Policy GBC 4 should be read 42020:2013 to inform the development of the proposal. alongside other relevant policies of the Local Plan. Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV4 biodiversity and geodiversity and Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM44 on the natural environment. 2810 HSE advise there is the potential for land allocated in your plan The Council notes the comments. The policy on Urenco, Capenhurst to encroach on consultations zones (Urenco Capenhurst and will include criteria related to development within the vicinity of Weaver Park Industrial Estate). hazardous installations and cross reference other relevant policies in the Local Plan. 2576, 2575 GBC4(A) Site specific comments on Urenco, Capenhurst: The Council welcomes the support for the identification of Urenco, - Comments are provided from the Nuclear Decommissioning Capenhurst within Local Plan (part Two) and on the policies map. Authority (NDA). The draft policy wording allows for “uranium enrichment and other - Decommissioning of redundant facilities will be expected related activities”. Additional wording on “the decommissioning of throughout the Plan (NDA) redundant facilities” is included in line with the activities/planning - Supports the allocation in GBC4 and map boundary, but it permissions on the site. does not fully reflect the on-going decommissioning process. The explanation to the policy has also been amended to include - Allocation should be amended to support development reference to parts of the site being used for development proposals associated with decommissioning. The allocation should fully for new development relating to the decommissioning process. account for the current operational and future development The explanation is also amended to reference the unique GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response at the site. infrastructure of the site and this is regulated through other regulatory - Additional policy wording suggested, to state; processes. The explanation is clear that detailed proposals requiring “and operations and uses associated with the management, planning permission would be subject to other detailed policies in the processing and storage of nuclear materials and the Local Plan and supported by any necessary technical assessments. decommissioning of redundant facilities” Development proposals will be considered in the context of NPPF - Additional paragraph for the supporting text suggested; paragraphs 79-92 on Green Belt and Local Plan (Part One) policy “Parts of the Capenhurst site are subject to the STRAT9. New development would be required to demonstrate how decommissioning of redundant NDA facilities as well as the the environmental or other benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh processing and storage of nuclear materials. harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, in line with Decommissioning is a long process that will extend beyond the national planning policy. plan period. Certain proposals for new development (associated with decommissioning and the management of nuclear materials) will be required at Capenhurst”. - It is considered that the existing site boundary as shown on the policies map is suitable. Additional information was provided to state the representations are made to ensure the policy fully reflects the activities currently taking place at Capenhurst. The representations were based on experience across the nuclear estate as opposed to any specific detailed programme of development works at Capenhurst. 1404 GBC4(B) - Site specific comments on Chester Zoo: The Council notes the comments and general support for the - Object to policy wording in the draft form. explanatory text and amendments to the policies map. - Generally supportive of the explanation text and the The explanation has been amended to recognise that the zoo is a proposed amendments to the Proposals map (map 5) in line conservation and education charity. The Plan will be amended to with the Natural Vision application site boundary. include a separate policy for redevelopment proposals at Chester Zoo. - Separate policy for Chester Zoo requested as this is not a The policy wording relates to development ‘in connection with the use ‘commercial operation or employment site’ in the typical of the site for zoological purposes’. The policy includes additional sense. The zoo is a conservation and education charity. The criteria to relate to the ‘operational improvements or enhancement of policy title may need amending. visitor attractions and ancillary facilities’. This recognises that some GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response - Request zoological purposes “and related development” ancillary development related to the tourism use of the site will be such as administration/ticket facilities, retail provision and necessary. Related development will also need to have regard to visitor accommodation (i.e. hotel) which formed part of the other policies in the plan, particularly for town centre uses. Natural Vision project and planning permission. The policy criteria has been reviewed in the context of NPPF and - Detailed comments on the criteria/bullets – should not STRAT9. introduce policy beyond NPPF and STRAT9 The Council notes that the zoo is preparing a Strategic Development - General support for explanation and map amendments to Plan for the Zoo to 2024 (for zoological and related development). The reflect the Natural Vision Council will continue to engage with the Zoo on the form and content - Para 6.16 references the development framework being of this document. This is a non-statutory document which will set out prepared by NEZS. A “Strategic Development Plan” to 2024 the Zoo's long term development aspirations. Individual planning is well progressed – the text should be amended to reflect applications will be considered on their merits in line with the this; the content of the plan will be discussed with officers development plan and other material considerations. of the Council. In relation to Additional Information: Additional information has been provided on behalf of Chester - The explanation has been amended to clarify specific wording: Zoo since the preferred approach consultation, which welcomes o “providing there would not be a greater impact” the recognition of the key role Chester Zoo plays in the o “Where there is evidence to suggest land is (i) likely to be economy. The comments are broadly supportive and specific redeveloped for operational improvements or (ii) likely to comments are provided on; become surplus…” - draft policy criteria/wording; o Zoological purposes, also includes “new animal exhibits, animal - Supportive of draft references in the explanation to the enclosures (including non-exhibit animal care), front line staff strategic development plan prepared by the Zoo facilities” - The Council should make specific reference to very special o Criteria: “enhances landscaping where possible” circumstances in green belt terms as outlined by NPPF and o GBC4 deletes reference to trees as this issue is covered through how this relates to proposals at the zoo. other policies in the Local Plan - Moderate boundary amendments are sought to the policies The Council welcomes the support for amended text to reference the map, east of Caughall Road and North/South Wervin Road. revised development framework being prepared for the site. The Council considers that the Very Special Circumstances should be considered through future individual planning applications. The Draft policy is written in accordance with NPPF and Local Plan (Part One) STRAT9. GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response The Council does not agree with the proposed amendments to the policies map east of Caughall Road and North/South Wervin Road at the present time. This is greenfield land within the green belt outside the current operational area. It is acknowledged that planning permission may be sought for this area as set out in the development framework for the site, which would be subject to determination in line with the development plan and NPPF and where appropriate consideration of Very Special Circumstances. The explanation to the policy has been amended to; “Any changes to the operational area as a result of new development taking place, will be a material consideration for future development proposals”. 2604 GBC4(C) Site specific comments on Countess of Chester The Plan will be amended to include a separate policy for - Flexibility needed to develop for medical and associated redevelopment proposals at the Countess of Chester Health Park. purposes, health and social purposes and for the Paragraph 7.17 of the Preferred Approaches states the Council will community. work with partners to understand future development needs on the - Residential training opportunities are key and associated site for medical purposes. If necessary and justified, a development with the future of the health park. Training for students brief would be prepared for the site to ensure a comprehensive would include NHS students training in fields such as health approach is taken towards new development in the health park. and social sciences. The form, content and timescales for a development brief will need - Need to provide preventative care as well as acute care further discussion with the Council. - Hospital needs to modernise and remain in its location as The amended policy for the Countess of Chester Health park aims to one of the largest employers in Chester ensure that the site remains capable of meeting modern health care - Additional guidance welcome, and would support an up to needs, whilst respecting the Green Belt location. It provides policy date development brief to guide future development on criteria to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken towards site. proposals within the site regarding scale, layout, heights, type of uses - Vision would incorporate the opportunity for a range of and phasing of development. residential accommodation including step-down beds, further employment opportunities and health care facilities which would respect the location of the site. 1959, 1968 GBC4(D) Site specific comments on Chester Business Park The Council agrees that NPPF allows for the limited infilling or partial GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response - NPPF para 89 relates to “limited infilling or the partial or or complete redevelopment of previously developed land in the green complete redevelopment of previously developed sites belt (paragraph 89). (brownfield land)” – recommend removing this site as it is a In line with Local Plan (Part One) policies STRAT3 and ECON1, Chester greenfield site, specifically for high quality B1 development Business Park is identified as a key office location within the green belt in a parkland setting. that is protected for high quality office development. Policy GBC4 is - Policy recognising high quality B1 office use in a parkland necessary to retain the boundary of the site on the policies map (to setting should be retained. Important to retain the replace CDLP policy EC4). Provision was made for the business park in landscaped rural buffer to conserve the setting of Chester this location through predecessor local plans and planning permission has historically been granted as exceptional development in the green belt. Although the business park is largely completed, there are two remaining development plots with planning permission for employment use that have yet to be developed. The Council agrees that it is important that the parkland setting is maintained and this is an important consideration for extensions to existing buildings or the development of new buildings in the plan period. The Local Plan (Part Two) policy CH2 Chester Employment Land should be read alongside policy GBC4/GBC4.D. This recognises the need for high quality development in a parkland setting. 2747, 1675, GBC4(E)- Site specific comments on Weaver park Industrial The Council notes the comments. The site has been considered in the 1579, 1355 Estate context of the Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV8 Managing waste. - Consider alongside reference to the re-siting of Frodsham The Land Allocations Background Paper sets out the approach to HWRC (policy DM54) replacement Household Waste Recycling facilities in the Local Plan - Application for re-siting should be actively pursued (Part Two). It is not necessary to identify the site through policy GBC4 - Suitable site for HWRC would be in this site, or on adjacent as there are currently no known redevelopment proposals likely to green belt land. occur in the plan period. Should development proposals come forward, these will be considered in line with national and local green belt policy. 2157 Site specific comments on Dale Barracks, Chester: The Council notes the comments and agrees that the Publication Draft - Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) is reviewing its Plan should identify the Dale Barracks site within policy GBC4 and on land and property portfolio the policies map. The boundary is to follow the CDLP policy ENV71 on GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response - Ministerial announcement expected in Autumn to detail the the policies map. sites to be subject to further investment and those surplus Since the consultation the Council has received additional information to military requirements from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation regarding the future of - Dale Barracks may be part of the announcement – given the Dale Barracks site. The Local Plan policy is necessary to (i) support that the site could be subject to significant change in the continuing existing military operations on the site and (ii) to provide a plan period it should be identified in policy GBC4 and on the framework for the potential long term use of the site, in the context of Policies Map national and local planning policy. It enables a planned approach to retain important existing uses/facilities and ensure infrastructure Additional information has been received since the Local Plan provision is appropriate to the types of future development on the (part Two) preferred approach consultation. The Government site. A development brief/masterplan for the site will be prepared in announcement 'A Better Defence Estate' (November 2016) sets partnership with the Council and other key stakeholders to ensure any out the long term strategic approach towards the future of the future redevelopment is comprehensively planned. It is essential that defence estate. The Dale Barracks site, Chester was included this meets the criteria established in the policy, in particular the scale, within the announcement as a potential site for disposal from layout, type of uses and phasing of development within the site given 2023. the location in the green belt and other site specific issues identified (retention of community facilities, landscaping, open space, historic assets, transport, ecological networks and water supply and capacity). 1355 Site specific: Mill Lane, Frodsham The comments on Mill Lane, Frodsham should be read alongside other - Potential to be developed for employment land relevant policies of the Local Plan (Part One), including STRAT9 green belt and the NPPF regarding previously developed land in the green belt. The site was identified through the preferred approach, to be considered alongside the policies on Household Waste Recycling Facilities. The potential sites for Household Waste Recycling Facilities have been reviewed through the Land Allocations Background Paper and supporting evidence (i.e. the Waste Needs Assessment 2017). The site has subsequently been discounted from further consideration. 2837 Site specific comments provided for each proposed allocation Further consultation will take place with Welsh Water as part of any specific development proposal / planning application. Policy GBC4 should be read alongside other relevant policies in the GBC4 – Commercial and employment sites in the Green Belt Question 30 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response Local Plan (Part Two) on water quality, supply and treatment.

GBC5 – Protection of countryside and landscape Question 31 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2186, 2800, General support for the identification of ASCVs. Support for the identification of Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) is noted. The 2767, 2699, identification of valued landscapes, defined as ASCV, is consistent with NPPF 1819, 1639, paragraph 109. 1580, 1969, 2451, 1633, 1119, 1009, 924, 67 2767, 2421, The location and boundaries of ASCVs should be The ASCVs identified in policy GBC5 are mapped on the map entitled ‘Map 225 shown on a map. Changes 5 – 10’ which accompanied the Local Plan Part Two Preferred Approach consultation. ASCVs will be included on the interactive policy map that accompanies Local Plan Part Two. 713 Additional areas of special landscape quality should The policy is focused upon protection of landscape in the countryside, hence be considered, such as the landscape along the landscapes within urban settlements such as Chester are not considered within major routes leading to and around Chester and this policy. The importance of gateways into Chester is covered by other policies in other settlements. Local Plan Part Two (CH6 Chester – key views, landmarks and gateways and historic skyline, and CH1 Chester – settlement area). Policy T2 (A56 Hoole Road Corridor) explicitly encourages development proposals which enhance the character, appearance and function of the Hoole Road corridor as a principal gateway and route into Chester. Improvements to gateways are also promoted in relation to Ellesmere Port (policy EP1) and Winsford (policy W1). As such, landscape along major routes into and around Chester and other settlements are considered to be adequately addressed within the Local Plan (Part Two). Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) are identified for their additional landscape quality and scenic value and whilst landscapes at gateways and routes into GBC5 – Protection of countryside and landscape Question 31 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response settlements are recognised as being important, identification of these areas in the same vein as ASCV is not considered appropriate. 1470 ASCV designations could limit options for a solution The policy been amended to ensure that protection to Areas of Special County to addressing the Winnington Bridge issue. Value (ASCV) is commensurate with their status as a local landscape designation, in line with NPPF paragraph 113. Policy wording has been amended to protect ASCV from development that would ‘unacceptably’ harm their landscape character, appearance and setting. This better allows for an overall assessment of harm to the landscape to be made, and for a planning judgement that considers impact upon ASCV within the wider planning balance. 1848 The policy does not reflect the explicit guidance Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) were initially identified in the former relating to ecological networks provided in the Cheshire County Structure Plan for combined significance of features of historic, Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment landscape, archaeological and nature conservation value. However, review section of the NPPF (paragraphs 109,113,114,117 through the CWAC Local Landscape Designation Review Advisory Position Paper and 165). The reference to ASCVs without including Part One showed that, of these characteristics, only landscape could not be ecological networks is spurious, as ASCVs (or their adequately replaced by policies within the Local Plan (Part One). As such, Local equivalent) do not appear in the NPPF. The Plan (Part Two) takes ASCV forward as a purely landscape designation. The wording of this policy should reflect the explanatory text has been amended to emphasise that the previous characteristics importance of biodiversity in the NPPF (as clearly underpinning ASCV designations, including natural characteristics, are recognised and repeatedly set out in NPPF paragraphs 81, to contribute to the overall character and value of a landscape and are included in 99,109,114,117, 118 and 143). the criteria used to define to the special landscape qualities of the areas. Given the context of ASCV being taken forward as a purely landscape designation, it is not considered appropriate to expand consideration of biodiversity and ecological networks in this policy. Biodiversity and ecological networks are explicitly covered in other policies within the plan that reflect NPPF requirements and expectations (Policy DM44 Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment). Whilst ASCV do not appear in the NPPF, they are consistent with paragraph 109 which requires the planning system to protect and enhance ‘valued landscapes’. ‘Valued landscapes’ are not defined in NPPF nor explicitly limited to nationally GBC5 – Protection of countryside and landscape Question 31 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response designated landscapes; the policy explanation has been amended to clarify that ASCV represent valued landscapes within the borough. 2087, 2554, The policy wording and title is inconsistent the The policy title has been amended to ‘Protection of Landscape’. This is considered 2609, 2348, NPPF. As currently drafted the policy essentially appropriate as the policy sets out the approach to protecting landscape in the 2021 protects all landscape features which is countryside, which includes identification of valued landscapes. The policy inappropriate and could be misinterpreted as a approach has been amended to better align with the requirements of the NPPF, ‘catch-all’ to refuse otherwise sustainable with the policy text revised to emphasise that whilst all of the borough’s landscape development. are important, the borough’s valued landscapes, defined as Areas of Special The protection of ASCV as valued landscapes needs County Value (ASCV), are identified because of their additional landscape character to be consistent with NPPF paragraph 113 and be and scenic value. commensurate with its local status. The current The beginning sentence (‘All landscape is protected…’) has been removed to reflect approach is not in accordance with the NPPF as it NPPF paragraph 109. Further, the policy wording has been amended to ensure that places greater restrictions upon development than protection to ASCV is commensurate with their status as a local landscape are afforded to nationally designated landscapes. It designation. The policy wording has been amended to protect ASCV from must also remember that this issue must be development that would ‘unacceptably’ harm their landscape character, considered as part of an overall planning balance appearance and setting. This better allows for an overall assessment of harm to and cannot of itself be determinative. the landscape to be made, and for a planning judgement that considers impact upon ASCV within the wider planning balance. Bullet point 2 (‘protect landscape features’) has been removed from this policy to avoid duplication with Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV2 which already protects features of landscape quality. 2296 Objection to the inclusion of the Cheshire FRESH Please refer to Council’s response to policy R3 – Employment land provision in the site at land adjoining Holmes Chapel Road, rural area and the site assessments in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Middlewich within the area designated as Assessment and Land Allocations Background paper 2017. countryside and not as employment generating land. 2314 The Whitegate Way and its hinterland of Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) designations are included in Local Plan (Part woodland, lakes, farmland, and the connecting Two) based on the evidence presented in the CWAC Local Landscape Designation public footpath network should be designated as Review Advisory Position Papers, which suggested that the general extent of the an Area of Special Landscape Value. former country-wide ASCV designations still present particular landscape GBC5 – Protection of countryside and landscape Question 31 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response character, qualities and scenic value, sufficient to merit identification and protection. As such, ASCV designations in Local Plan Part Two are based upon the areas identified within the Chester District, Ellesmere Port and Neston, and Vale Royal Local Plans. The value of the Whitegate Way is fully recognised and its protection is already secured in the Local Plan Part Two through its identification as a strategic recreational routeway in policy DM 37 Recreational Routeways. Recreational routeways are identified as important within the borough for recreation and benefits provided to ecology, accessibility and health. Policy DM 37 seeks to safeguards the route and requires its enhancement wherever possible; as such it is considered that protection of the Whitegate Way is sufficiently achieved within the Local Plan Part Two. 2625 The tests used to determine development are The policy wording has been amended to ensure that protection to Areas of imprecise and overly restrictive. Special County Value (ASCV) is commensurate with their status as a local landscape designation. The policy wording has been amended to protect ASCV from development that would ‘unacceptably’ harm their landscape character, appearance and setting. This better allows for an overall assessment of harm to the landscape to be made, and for a planning judgement that considers impact upon ASCV within the wider planning balance. A study has been undertaken to draw together the special qualities that underpin each ASCV designation – ‘Local Landscape Designations: Areas of Special County Value’ (June 2017). This is now signposted within the policy explanation to better inform judgement of the harm of a development proposal on the special qualities for which an ASCV has been designated. 2748 Hill Forts and Sandstone Trail need to be protected A study has been undertaken to draw together the special qualities that underpin too. each ASCV designations (Local Landscape Designations – Areas of Special County Value, June 2017). Hill forts are identified within the ‘cultural character’ criteria used to identify these special qualities. Similarly the Sandstone Trail is identified as an important feature where it provides recreational opportunities within ASCVs. Policy GBC 2 requires that development preserves and where possible enhances GBC5 – Protection of countryside and landscape Question 31 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the special qualities for which an ASCV has been designated, and as such offers protection to the Hill Forts and the Sandstone Trail in these instances. The Sandstone Trail is also proposed for inclusion as a strategic routeway within policy DM 37 – Recreational Routeways which seeks to safeguard and where possible, enhance the route. 2800 Would like to see the Gowy Valley recognised. It Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) designations are included in Local Plan (Part has sites of wildlife interest, and is said to be 1 of Two) based on the evidence presented in the CWAC Local Landscape Designation only 3 rivers in northern Europe where the eel Review Advisory Position Papers, which suggested that the general extent of the population is relatively stable. former country-wide ASCV designations still present particular landscape character, qualities and scenic value, sufficient to merit identification and protection. As such, ASCV designations in Local Plan Part Two are based upon the areas identified within the Chester District, Ellesmere Port and Neston, and Vale Royal Local Plans. ASCV are identified in Local Plan (Part Two) as purely landscape designations based on the conclusion of the evidence base (Local Landscape Policy Review Part One, (January 2016) and Local Landscape Designations – Areas of Special County Value, (June 2017)). The evidence concluded that of the characteristics previously used to identify ASCVs (historic, landscape, archaeological and nature conservation value) only landscape could not be adequately replaced by policy within Local Plan Part One. Natural character is included in the criteria for defining the special qualities of an ASCV because the policy recognises that various aspects contribute to overall landscape value. However, as a purely landscape designation, ASCV designation is not considered most appropriate to protect the wildlife interests of the Gowy Valley. This is adequately covered by other Local Plan policies, namely ENV4 in Local Plan (Part One) which protects sites and/or features of international, national and local importance for biodiversity, and furthered in Local Plan Part Two policy DM44 Protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps Question 32 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2187, 1682, Support for the policy. Support for this policy is noted. 1676, 1970, 991, 714 2022, 2452 Support for the alternative option to include 4 The Sustainability Appraisal of this policy considered the current approach against the 2093, 1635 additional key settlement gaps. alternative option to include 4 additional key settlement gaps, and considered the 1047, 1010 current approach to be most balanced. This is because whilst including additional key 991, 925, 184 settlement gaps would have additional benefits of reducing development in rural and 183 less accessible areas with associated positive impacts on, for example, landscape, climate change and air quality, it would, however, further restrict opportunities for housing and employment development. Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV2 states that the Local Plan (Part Two) will identify key gaps between settlements. Willington Corner, Oscroft, Tilstone Fearnall and Ebnal are not identified settlements within the hierarchy set out in STRAT2 of Local Plan (Part One) and as such are classified as countryside where Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 restricts development to that which requires a countryside location. The existing policy context in these locations is considered to provide sufficient protection from development that would erode the separation and settlement identity functions of these gaps. However, the key settlement gaps included within the policy are between settlements which form the wider built up area of Northwich, as set out in Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 5. Whilst these key settlement gaps lie outside the Northwich settlement boundary and so are classified as countryside under STRAT9, they all lie adjacent to the settlement boundary where Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT2 encourages development to be ‘located within or on the edge of …Northwich…’ (emphasis added). As such, development pressures are expected in these locations. Without the key settlement gap designation, it is considered that development could erode these gaps and lead to settlement coalescence. An alternative option which includes fewer key settlement gaps has not been provided because, based on the evidence presented in the Local Landscape Policy Review Part 2, it is considered appropriate and justified to include all candidate key GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps Question 32 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response settlement gaps between settlements that form the wider Northwich area. This accords with Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 5 which requires that the character and individuality of settlements that form the wider built up areas of Northwich are safeguarded. 2700, 1583, Promotion of other areas to be identified as key A number of representations were received which promoted alternative key 1010, 532, 183 settlement gaps, including those within settlement gaps. The following suggested sites were dismisses in the evidence base Neighbourhood Plans. document (Cheshire West and Chester (CWAC) Local Landscape Designation Review Advisory Position Paper Part 2) on the grounds that key settlement gaps are not identified in the Green Belt because the Green Belt performs the appropriate function: Hartford and Weaverham; Helsby and Frodsham. Other suggested sites were not identified within the background paper, including: Hartford and Kingsmead, Hartford and Davenham, Hartford and Whitegate, and gaps between the three settlements of Tattenhall, Newton-by-Tattenhall and Gatesheath (excluding the gap between Tattenhall and Newton-by-Tattenhall which was assessed and dismissed because the degree of separation and limited inter-visibility was considered to remain significant and distinct even if the majority of planned growth for Tattenhall occurred on its northern edge). The CWAC Local Landscape Designation Review Advisory Position Papers provides specific and up to date evidence to justify the approach to and identification of key settlement gaps. Whilst the local importance of the additional areas raised through consultation is recognised, no further key settlement gaps are proposed to be included within the policy on the grounds of the evidence base document which states: ‘where no PKSG[Potential Key Settlement Gap Areas] is set out, it should be taken that the likelihood of land elsewhere presenting important settlement separation and identity functions was considered to be highly unlikely’ (paragraph 4.16). Once ‘made’, neighbourhood plans form part of the Development Plan for the borough. Therefore, the key gaps included within the Kelsall and Willington, and Tattenhall and District Neighbourhood Plans will be considered within the development management process. Duplication within Part Two is, therefore, not considered necessary. GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps Question 32 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2555, 1635, Concern regarding the flexibility of the policy to The identification of key settlement gaps does not operate as an absolute restriction 1047, 925 allow certain uses in key settlement gaps. on development but rather serves to highlight areas where a threat of coalescence or erosion of settlement identity is likely as a consequence of growth over the plan period. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that development is only appropriate within a key settlement gap where it would not harm the settlement identity and separation functions served by the gap. For clarity, text has been added to emphasise this in the explanation. The policy adopts a criteria-based approach which allows for each proposal in a key settlement gap to be assessed on its own merits, whilst having particular regard to potential harm to the function of the key settlement gap. This has been emphasised in the revised policy by moving the list of criteria from the explanation into the policy itself. This approach is considered to offer sufficient flexibility to eliminate the need to identify specific development exceptions. 2522 Objection to key settlement gap between The Council met with this consultee to discuss their representation on 20/02/2017. Lostock Gralam and Northwich. This site has been assessed within the context of the Local Landscape Policy Review evidence base documents and, in line with the findings of the evidence, is considered to contribute to the value of the key settlement gap between Lostock Gralam and Northwich which performs a clear separation function between these settlements. As such, the Council does not propose to amend the boundary of the key settlement gap. The representation seeks to promote the site for housing development; the assessment of the site for this purpose can be found in the Land Allocations Background Paper. 2669 Objection to key settlement gap between This representation has been considered in the context of the recent Local Landscape Lostock Gralam and Northwich. Policy Review (2016) which concludes that this gap performs a clear separation function between Northwich and Lostock Gralam that even a small amount of development could erode. The evidence base identifies it as candidate key settlement gap dependent on the outcomes of this planning application. As the application was refused and the appeal decision dismissed, the site is proposed to be retained within the key settlement gap. Removal of the site from the key settlement gap on the grounds of conclusions drawn about a specific development proposal would mean that future proposals are not required to fully consider and respond to the locally GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps Question 32 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response acute threats of coalescence and erosion of settlement identity that exist in this location. As such, no change is proposed to the boundary of the key settlement gap. 1900 , 1872 Objection to the key settlement gap between The principle that key settlement gaps will be identified to “safeguard the character Davenham Village and Leftwich Grange. and individuality of the settlements that form the wider built-up area of Northwich….” is established in policy STRAT5 of Local Plan (Part One). Circumstances at the time of approving 36 dwellings on land off Green Lane (12/04986/FUL) were such that Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and so the Local Plan housing policies were considered to be out-of-date and the presumption in favour of granting planning permission for sustainable development applied. However, as at 1 April 2017, the Council has demonstrated a 7.82 year housing land supply. This representation has been considered in the context of the recent Local Landscape Policy Review (2016) which concludes that this gap provides a perceptual break between the settlements, with its separation function experiencing erosion. The evidence base concluded that this gap should be designated as a key settlement gap if the planning applications pending at the time of the study (14/03801/OUT and 14/04524/FUL) were refused. Both applications were refused, and as such the gap is proposed to be identified as a key settlement gap in Local Plan (Part Two). 2022 Clearer definition of measures required and the Criteria to assess whether a development would harm the function of the key criteria setting out where development may be settlement gaps (i.e. the measures of harm) was set out in the policy explanation. This permitted should be moved into the policy list of criteria has been moved into the policy itself to enhance clarity. Further itself. explanation has been added into the explanatory text regarding how harm should be assessed. 1832 Suggested wording alterations to make the It is considered that the current wording which identifies the circumstances in which policy more positive and robust, as follows: development would be permitted more positively engages with opportunities for ‘7.29 – “Development may will not be permitted sustainable development than the wording suggested in the representation. As such, within Key Settlement Gaps where: no change is proposed. • “The development would not result in the coalescence of settlements……” • “The development would not result in a GBC6 – Key Settlement Gaps Question 32 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response significant increase in indivisibility between settlement edges where…..” • “The development would not harm the perception of openness….” • “The development would not serve to materially alter….” 1471 The boundaries of key settlement gaps should The key settlement gaps are shown on the following maps which accompanied Part be shown on the map. Two Preferred Approach: ‘Map Change 7’ and ‘Map Change 9’. The Key Settlement Gaps will be identified on the Council’s interactive policies map that will accompany the Local Plan (Part Two).

GBC 7 – Jodrell Bank Question 33 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2024 Gladman are unclear of the necessity of Policy GBC7, which relates Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope Consultation Zone does cover part specifically to development within the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope of the south east corner of the borough. Jodrell Bank is a world Consultation Zone, as this would appear to just duplicate the class facility that should be afforded reasonable protection. statutory duty set out in The Town and Country (Jodrell Bank Radio Therefore, it is considered appropriate to identify the zone on the Telescope) Direction 1973. policies map and identify the constraints in this area.

Transport: Questions 34 to 40

T1 – Chester Western Relief Road Question 34 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 81, 1280, General support for the draft policy approach and safeguarded route. No change necessary. 1555, 1677, 1689, 1996, 2610 26 Support concept to reduce congestion in Chester, serve housing The policy has been amended to take account of future feasibility development at Wrexham Road and provide an additional crossing of work on the proposal and until the implications of this work are the River Dee. However, the project would be very expensive and the fully understood, it is premature for the Council to pre-empt the prospect of funding from central government is unlikely. A feasibility outcome of the process and identify an alignment on the policies study should determine whether it is a credible proposal if it is to be map. included, to avoid planning blight on the identified route. 716 The proposed route is unacceptable and would bring traffic into the The policy has been amended to take account of future feasibility Bumpers Lane area, from where traffic on Sealand Road to the work on the proposal with a range of partners, including Highways Countess Way is often congested and the nearest extension further England, to look at the best connection points for the scheme and eastwards is incapable of accommodating more traffic. Further to develop a robust business case to support the Mersey Dee alternative routes should be investigated in liaison with Flintshire and Alliance Growth Strategy. the government of Wales. 795 Policy T5 does not mention Mid-Cheshire rail line between Chester Comment noted. Policy T5 seeks to safeguard disused rail corridors and Manchester. It is important as it serves villages along the line and and lines from development, rather than focused on operational could serve commuters to/from Northwich if there were more, rail lines. Part One policy STRAT 10 provides support doe frequent and faster services. improvements to public transport services. 1268 There are no policies which address road infrastructure concerns in Confirm that this is because Northwich transport study has not yet Northwich area. This is assumed to be because the Northwich area been completed – however, the policy has been amended to transport infrastructure study has not yet been completed. Please refocus on setting out the current Council’s priorities for local road confirm and explain how the result will be incorporated into the Local network schemes. While the detailed outcome of the Northwich Plan. Transport Strategy is not currently known, it is anticipated that in the long-term some highway infrastructure improvements will be required to the north of Northwich and these have been included in the policy, along with the context of the Northwich Transport T1 – Chester Western Relief Road Question 34 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Strategy provided in the explanation text. 1584 The proposal is likely to impact significantly on established The policy has been refocused on the Council’s priorities for local communities and could create new pockets of congestions and air road network improvement schemes, and has been amended to quality problems. include criteria that future proposals will be expected to deliver significant traffic management benefits. Part One policy SOC 5 does not allow development that gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health, including from air pollution. 1960, 1971 The safeguarded route has many unresolved problems including The policy has been amended to take account of future feasibility conflict with the re-doubling of the rail track and the multiple work on the proposal with a range of partners, including Highways crossings of the route by other roads. Studies for alternative routes to England, to look at the best connection points for the scheme and the West deserve support in particular a possible link with Hawarden to develop a robust business case to support the Mersey Dee Airport and Broughton Retail Park. Alliance Growth Strategy. Until the implications of this work are fully understood, it is premature for the Council to pre-empt the outcome of the process and identify an alignment on the policies map. 2168 The scheme will be of greater priority once additional housing is The policy has been amended to take account of future feasibility developed at Wrexham Road, and the Council should commit to a work on the proposal and to take account of the Wrexham Road time scale to bring it forward with the required funding. The need to strategic allocation, identified in Local Plan policy STRAT 3 for the reconfigure the Overleigh Roundabout to accommodate traffic growth provision of around 1,300 new homes, with a range of partners, resulting from Wrexham Road should be included in the Part 2 including Highways England, to look at the best connection points document. for the scheme and to develop a robust business case to bring the scheme forward. 2270 Object to the policy approach. There is no evidence to demonstrate The policy has been amended to take account of future feasibility that the CWRR is environmentally acceptable, viable and capable of work on the proposal with a range of partners, including Highways coming forward during the plan period, and the approach is England, to look at the best connection points for the scheme and inconsistent with national planning policy and guidance, in particular: to develop a robust business case to support the delivery of the Wrexham Road strategic site. Until the implications of this work 1. The preferred option for the CWRR has not been determined (i.e. are fully understood, it is premature for the Council to pre-empt it is not known whether it will be a single or dual carriageway nor the outcome of the process and identify an alignment on the is the precise route the road will take determined); policies map. T1 – Chester Western Relief Road Question 34 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2. The alignment and design options have not been subject to detailed design or environmental assessment and there are no technical details to justify the preferred option; 3. There has been no assessment of the safeguarded route against alternatives, nor of its environmental impacts, and it therefore cannot be concluded that it represents the most suitable alignment; 4. The safeguarded route does not work with the Wrexham Road/A55 junction and the section of dual carriageway from the A55 to the Chester Business Park roundabout; and, 5. There is no funding secured for its delivery. 2495 Amend policy to require an Ecological Appraisal that meets BS The policy has been amended to refocus on local road network 42020:2013 to inform the development of the proposal. improvements and provides criteria ensuring that any harmful impacts are effectively mitigated or avoided, in line with other policies in the plan and refers to new policy DM 44 ‘Protecting and enhancing the natural environment’ which includes a requirement for Ecological Appraisals which meet BS42020. 2633 The highways proposals may have implications for Royal Mail in the Comment noted. The Royal Mail will continue to be consulted at context of their statutory duty to provide efficient mail sorting and future consultation stages in the Local Plan process. delivery for the Cheshire West and Chester administrative area, particularly for the Chester Mail Centre which is located adjacent to the indicative route for the Chester Western Relief road. Request continued liaison with Royal Mail on all future transport proposals and be notified on planning applications. 2838 There are a number of locations where the proposed route is likely to Comment noted. Welsh Water will continue to be consulted at impact upon Welsh Water assets. Early engagement will be required future consultation stages in the Local Plan process. with Welsh Water who welcome the opportunity to input into the technical work regarding the road alignment.

T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 82, 1281, Support the draft policy approach. No change necessary. 1701, 1704 13 Agree with the idea of a 5th Park and Ride, but only on the basis that it is Comment noted. The policy only safeguards land for the not linked to housing development in the Green Belt. If a Park and Ride development of a Park and Ride site and does not include any scheme went ahead it should be tied into a more robust approach to provision for any associated housing development. Any proposal dealing with the problem of non-residents parking on roads in the for housing within the Green Belt will be assessed against all suburbs of the city to avoid paying a parking charge policies in the development plan. The Council is preparing a Parking Strategy that looks at the borough’s overall parking provision and issues such as residential parking. 27 The need for a 5th P&R at the M53/A56 junction has not been The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has demonstrated - the existing facilities at the Zoo and Boughton Heath, already been established through previous studies undertaken by do not operate at capacity. The construction of an additional facility Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport would incur a considerable capital cost and additional operational cost. Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These The addition of P&R buses on the Hoole Road corridor would add to studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for existing congestion without enhancing bus service for local residents. If a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R in the medium to long term there is a need for additional capacity, then sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester there is sufficient additional land at both the Zoo and Boughton Heath Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there to be expanded at a much lower cost than any new facility. One could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole improvement which should be implemented in the immediate term is Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development to greatly improve the signposting to access the existing P&R facilities aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges from the M53/A56 junction. made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for The proposal for a separate Pedestrian/Cycle bridge at Hoole Bridge is Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an supported and would allow some widening of the carriageway as well increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered as providing a much safer access for pedestrians and cyclists. The need reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in for a coach layover location is supported and the use of a P&R facility is response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As an attractive option with possibly the P&R at the Zoo as most such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the appropriate location. impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. The indicative layout includes provision for coach parking at this location. 717 A fifth Park and Ride site is not needed with the existing ones currently The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has underused. The Hoole corridor is too congested and unsuitable for already been established through previous studies undertaken by accommodating a bus lane. The other improvements proposed should Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport be pursued without adversely affecting the existing landscape character Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These which is good. All park and ride sites should be extended and improved studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for to accommodate the additional traffic expected from the city centre a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R redevelopments. Consideration should be given to integrating the park sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester and ride services with other arterial bus services. Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1410 The evidence documents are based on 2001 data, and do not look at The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has home to work journeys in Hoole by volume – 2011 data should be already been established through previous studies undertaken by looked at. Air quality and traffic congestion are already issues in Hoole, Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport which will be made worse by private housing schemes currently Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These receiving support around Hoole Hall. The modelling used and cost studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for projection indicative figures being proposed are weak and there is an a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R absence of any evidence that the quality of life in the Hoole area will be sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester improved rather than worsened. The suitability of Hoole Road as a Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there 'corridor' capable of coping with the frequency of buses projected must could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole be examined in more detail. Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. 1585 It is important to link the Local Plan Part 2 to the ambitions and The policy has been amended to include reference to requirements measures identified through the Carbon Reduction Commission of for electric vehicle charging infrastructure and support the use of Enquiry. Any new facilities for P&R should feature electric charging low emission and electric buses, to avoid introducing additional air points to accommodate new vehicle technologies and clearly state the quality issues along the Hoole Road corridor. need for low emission and ideally electric buses, and the creation of a 5th P&R should not introduce additional air quality issues along the T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Hoole Road corridor 1586 Key to achieving greater sustainable transport uptake will be the links While the policy already requires that measures to provide cycling between any new site and the existing off road provision via the and walking connections are provides, the explanation has been Chester Greenway or serving cycle routes. amended to specifically reference the provision of access to the Chester Millennium Greenway. 1961, 1973 A 5th Park and Ride is not needed in Chester. A recent review of The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has Chester’s Park and Ride has shown that the 5th Park and Ride to serve already been established through previous studies undertaken by the M53 - A55 access to Chester using the A56 Hoole Rd has a weak Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport business case and shows a decline in Park and Ride use. Bus priority Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These along Hoole road would result in significant community disruption and studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for the need for a replacement of Hoole bridge. Alternative provision of a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R Park and Ride in Chester could be provided through, increasing the sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester capacity at Upton Park and Ride site and/or all existing Park and Ride Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there sites. could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2271 Strongly support better provision for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Comment noted no change necessary. the railway on Hoole Road. 2496 Amend policy to require an Ecological Appraisal that meets BS The policy has been amended include a criterion that seeks to 42020:2013 to inform the development of the proposal. minimise the impact on biodiversity and geodiversity and the explanation has been amended to refer to policy DM 44 which includes a requirement for Ecological Appraisals which meet BS42020. 2635 The highways proposals may have implications for Royal Mail in the Comment noted. The Royal Mail will continue to be consulted on context of their statutory duty to provide efficient mail sorting and future consultation stages in the Local Plan process. delivery for the Cheshire West and Chester administrative area. Request continued liaison with Royal Mail on all future transport proposals and be notified on planning applications.

2797 A proposal for a 5th Park and Ride site was previously rejected at public The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has enquiry mainly due to the business case being weak and that additional already been established through previous studies undertaken by work would be required before consideration was given to Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport implementing the project. Suggestions for paying subsidies to ensure Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These viability underline the poor business case. A junction layout on the A56 studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for close to the M53/A56 roundabout to permit cars and the P&R buses to a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R access the site would cause even more congestion especially during sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester both the morning and evening rush-hours. A 5th Park and Ride for Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there Chester is not needed and any building development on the Green Belt could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole between the settlements of Hoole Village/ Boole Bank and Mickle Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development Trafford itself except in very special circumstances is opposed. aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges Additional parking at times of high demand for the P&R could be made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In negotiated with the Zoo, which avoid the expense of developing an support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for additional Park and Ride and the need for using Green Belt land. The Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an development of housing whether or not to be used to help finance the increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered new P&R is opposed. The impact of the use of the Hoole Road corridor reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in to access the City, on the businesses in Hoole has not been properly response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response addressed. such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. The study also showed that the site can be safely accessed from the A56 without causing any congestion to the morning and evening peak at this location. The policy has been amended to commit the Council to working closely with Highways England to develop a detailed design that benefits both the local and the strategic road networks.

2801 Both options are opposed. The designation of A 56 as an enhanced The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has route into Chester is impractical. It would be better to already been established through previous studies undertaken by improve/develop the existing Park and Ride sites on the A41 and at the Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport Zoo, should more capacity be needed. The business case for Park and Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These Ride sites is weak and the A56 Hoole Road, between Hoole Bridge and studies identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for the A 41 roundabout is too narrow to take any extra traffic generated. a new P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester Transport Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As T2 – A56 Hoole Road Corridor Question 35 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation.

Question 36 – Which option should be followed for the site of a fifth park and ride in Hoole? Are there any other options that should be investigated? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 14 It would be more sensible to build such a facility on land owned by the The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' Council. Developing land to the north of the junction for housing and (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the a Park and Ride site, would be inappropriate. preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. The policy only safeguards land for the development of a park and ride scheme and does not include support for the development of housing. 83 Option 2 to allow the coach parking. Either option would require The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' improvements to the car park also known as Hoole Road and the (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the railway bridge. preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. The indicative layout includes provision for coach parking at this location. The policy explanation supports development proposals that improve the operation and function of Hoole Bridge. 718 A fifth Park and Ride site is not needed with the existing ones The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has currently underused. The Hoole corridor is too congested and already been established through previous studies undertaken by unsuitable for accommodating a bus lane. The other improvements Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport Question 36 – Which option should be followed for the site of a fifth park and ride in Hoole? Are there any other options that should be investigated? ID Summary of issue raised Council response proposed should be pursued without adversely affecting the existing Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These studies landscape character which is good. All park and ride sites should be identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for a new extended and improved to accommodate the additional traffic P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R sites expected from the city centre redevelopments. Consideration should located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester Transport be given to integrating the park and ride services with other arterial Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there could be bus services. sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. 1282 There is insufficient detail provided to state a preferred location for The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' the fifth Park & Ride site. The preferred site would be the one that (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the provides the most efficient and safest access and egress for cars and preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, for the P&R buses. cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. The indicative layout and highways modelling shows that the site can be safely and efficiently accessed by both cars and buses. 1679 Option 2 to be the best option as it allows for the greater expansion The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' as the scheme grows. Further the available space may allow for other (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the employment opportunities and incentives to use the system such as preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, car wash and valeting and small rest stops for refreshments before or cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder Question 36 – Which option should be followed for the site of a fifth park and ride in Hoole? Are there any other options that should be investigated? ID Summary of issue raised Council response after journeys. and landowner consultation. The site assessment included capacity for the potential expansion to up to 1,000 car parking spaces, and included space for ancillary facilities. 1911 Option 1 should be the preferred option – based on the original The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' allocation of a site North-West of the A56, as originally contained (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the within policy TR7 of the former Chester City Council Local Plan and has preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, advantages in general as a P&R for: cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder 1. Capturing city-bound trips from the M53/M56 corridor, which is and landowner consultation. not well served by any current P&R site 2. Completing an effective ring of P&R around the city, minimising any ‘junction hopping’ on the A55 or A41 3. Supporting a strategic goal of ensuring P&R captures commuters, reducing A56 AM peak traffic by 10% 4. Providing good onward bus access to the key developments at Northgate and Chester Business Quarter 5. Facilitating use of the Chester Greenway cycle route, potentially incorporating “park & bike” and bike hire 6. Allowing both weekend visitor and shopper inbound access and potentially leisure access to countryside 7. Having the potential to operate at a break-even level, covering both site and bus service operating costs

Option 1 - North of A56 has advantages over the Option 2 site - South East of A56, especially in its ability to provide efficient access, in that: 1. Trips entering the Option 1 can be taken direct from the M53 junction roundabout, avoiding delay on the A56 and allow trips returning to the Motorway / A55 to have priority left out access on to the A56 north 2. By contrast, the Option 2 site could have an unrestricted left turn in to the P&R – but would be unable to send exiting trips directly on to the roundabout without safety issues arising; hence it Question 36 – Which option should be followed for the site of a fifth park and ride in Hoole? Are there any other options that should be investigated? ID Summary of issue raised Council response would need signals 3. Trips to the Option 2 site would have to join queuing traffic on Warrington Road traffic bound for Chester until reaching the entrance to the P&R; the Option 1 site separates these two streams on the roundabout 4. Given the restricted frontage with the A56 due to the disused railway overbridge, the Option 2 site would need to have its buses using the same signalised junction as the P&R users. Separating these accesses reduces bus delay, eliminates driver confusion and aligns with other P&R sites. Only Option 1 does this 5. The Option 2 site has a relatively short frontage with the Chester Greenway which may complicate direct access. From the Option 1 site, there are already ramps adjacent to the parking area that could be used 6. Similarly, should there be merits from local community access into the P&R (e.g. if bike hire etc. were to be provided), then the Option 1 site is more open to the A56 frontage, and closer to surrounding housing

Therefore there are advantages with rolling forward the P&R designation in the location already within saved Chester Local Plan policy TR7 – rather than taking two steps back to what is an unknown quantity. 2197 The inclusion of provision for a 5th Park and Ride at Hoole should be The requirement and approximate location of a fifth P&R site has removed. The statement at 8.10 that the need for a 5th park and ride already been established through previous studies undertaken by has long been recognised is not evidence based. The current park and Colin Buchanan & Partners Ltd in 2007 and the Chester Transport ride facilities utilisation was reviewed approximately 2 years ago and Strategy Phase 1 (2014) report completed by AECOM. These studies all were found to be operating with substantial excess capacity. There identified Hoole Road as the most appropriate location for a new is ample capacity if needed at the Whitchurch road park and ride site. P&R site, which would complement the existing four P&R sites located on the periphery of the City Centre. The Chester Transport Question 36 – Which option should be followed for the site of a fifth park and ride in Hoole? Are there any other options that should be investigated? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Strategy Phase 2 (AECOM, 2015), established that there could be sufficient patronage demand for a P&R along the Hoole Road corridor in the future, provided the City’s development aspirations were realised and that City Centre parking charges made using P&R economically beneficial to the customer. In support of Policy T2, the most recent available Department for Transport (DfT) background traffic data along the A56 indicated an increase of over 500 vehicles per day since 2010. It is considered reasonable to assume congestion levels are expected to worsen in response to an increased number of car drivers on this corridor. As such, a P&R site along the A56 would be expected to reduce the impact of additional demand along the Hoole Road corridor. The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder and landowner consultation. 2784 Support Option 2. The “Hoole Gate” scheme - which proposes an The 'A56 Hoole Road, Chester - Park & Ride Site Selection Report' altered junction at the end of the M53 with a bridge over the (2017) concluded that a site to the north west of the A56 is the cycleway (the former railway), could provide delivery of this facility. preferred location based on the comparison of a range of technical, Encouraging traffic coming into Chester from the M53 junction into a cost, environmental and land-use factors, supported by stakeholder Park and Ride facility on this land would work well. The use of a bridge and landowner consultation. over the cycleway to access this land makes good sense as there is scope for a bus route out on to the A56 between Lynton Lodge and the old railway bridge. Option 2 would maintain greater separation between Chester and Ellesmere Port (maintaining the Green Belt). Using this site to encourage commuters and shoppers arriving into Chester by car to take a bus or to cycle the remainder of their commute into work would fit with many of the broader policy objectives of the published Part 1 Local Plan.

T3 – A54 Winsford Railway Station to Stanthorne Question 37 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 84, 1705 Support the draft policy approach. No change necessary. Note that Policy T3 has been combined with revised policy T1, the scope of which has been widened to cover local road network improvement priorities within Cheshire West and Chester. 1588 No mention of car parking expansion at Winsford Rail Station. Comment noted. The purpose of the policy is to safeguard a road alignment from the A54 at Winsford Railway station to Stanthorne, and does not cover the provision of car parking. 2636 Request continued liaison with Royal Mail on all future transport Comment noted. The Royal Mail will continue to be consulted on proposals and be notified on planning applications. future consultation stages in the Local Plan process.

T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 85, 1283 Support the draft policy approach. No change necessary. 7 The council should encourage the introduction of passenger trains on The re-opening of the Sandbach to Northwich line to passenger the Middlewich line; the potential for a new train station at Gadbrook traffic is already included in Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 10 Park; and the possibility of a new railway hub at Hartford where the as a scheme that the Council supports. Both the Middlewich line West Coast main line and the Manchester train line cross. and improvements at Hartford feature within the Council’s strategic priorities for rail improvements for the borough and adjoining areas. Amended Policy N3 requires that new employment development on land to the south-west of Gadbrook Park should be planned in such a way that supports improvements and enhancements to the rail network and safeguards sufficient land for a railway station (supporting the re-opening of the Sandbach-Northwich line to passenger traffic). T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 28 It is appropriate to review car parking capacities at railway stations. The Council recognises the importance of improving facilities at The introduction of new services via the Halton Curve and doubling of Helsby to support the introduction of new services via the Halton the frequency of services to Manchester via Warrington from 2018 Curve and has raised the need with the rail industry to respond to provides a potential for a major increase in rail usage along these this opportunity. The Council’s borough-wide parking review routes and the possibility of providing a rail based P&R to the East of identified key actions including the development of a joint strategy Chester should be actively considered – Helsby is the most obvious for Helsby and Frodsham in relation to station parking. The policy location. has been amended to reference the parking review and provide support for improvements to car parking to serve Helsby station. 776 Will the Council give consideration to assisting in the re-opening of the Amended Policy N3 requires that new employment development Northwich - Sandbach railway line to passenger trains and the potential on land to the south-west of Gadbrook Park should be planned in for building a new station at Gadbrook Park? The matter would need to such a way that supports improvements and enhancements to the be looked at in conjunction with Cheshire East Council, as they would rail network and safeguards sufficient land for a railway station need to build a new station at Middlewich. (supporting the re-opening of the Sandbach-Northwich line to passenger traffic). 1252 Fully support with respect to Frodsham and Helsby stations in particular The Council’s borough-wide parking review identified key actions and look forward to viewing the outcomes of the current parking survey including the development of a joint strategy for Helsby and work and measures implemented to serve the projected demand of the Frodsham in relation to station parking. The policy has been Halton Curve reinstatement and increased rail user demand across the amended to reference the parking review and provide support for region. improvements to car parking to serve both Frodsham and Helsby stations. 1269 The approach set out, safeguarding land around Hartford, Northwich, Amended Policy N3 requires that new employment development Greenbank and Lostock Gralam Stations, for future expansion is on land to the south-west of Gadbrook Park should be planned in supported. Request that land is safeguarded around the railway line at such a way that supports improvements and enhancements to the Gadbrook Park for a future station in this location. This would rail network and safeguards sufficient land for a railway station complement the allocation of land in the Cheshire East Local Plan for a (supporting the re-opening of the Sandbach-Northwich line to new station at Middlewich. passenger traffic). 1358 Support, however, the issues of the Household Waste Recycling centre The Council’s borough-wide parking review identified key actions and car parking in Frodsham need to be considered. The waste facility including the development of a joint strategy for Helsby and needs to be 'moved' to a sustainable location and car parking needs to Frodsham in relation to station parking, the assessment of be considered as a whole - with other measures to maximise the space potential new sites and/or the conversion of sites for car parking, T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response available without impacting on visitors or residents. using additional car parks in the town, and other management measures . The policy has been amended to reference the parking review and provide support for improvements to car parking to serve Frodsham station. 1466, 1478 No mention of working with Network Rail on increasing train capacity Comment noted. The Council is working with key industry by lengthening platforms and supplying free internet access to increase stakeholders to secure these benefits within Cheshire West and passenger footfall and business use, which should be given more Chester. The policy is supportive of station facility enhancements consideration. and the explanation has been amended to with examples of station facility improvements that would be supported, such as increased platform capacity. 1508 Request that land at Gadbrook Park is reserved for the construction of a Amended Policy N3 requires that new employment development railway platform and associated car parking. Support safeguarding land on land to the south-west of Gadbrook Park should be planned in for car parking at all the other stations referred to. such a way that supports improvements and enhancements to the rail network and safeguards sufficient land for a railway station (supporting the re-opening of the Sandbach-Northwich line to passenger traffic). 1681 Further work is required to review parking facilities across the Rural The Council recognises the importance of improving facilities at area especially within Frodsham and Helsby with the proposed re- Helsby to support the introduction of new services via the Halton opening of the Halton Curve and the additional passenger numbers this Curve and has raised the need with the rail industry to respond to will bring. Consideration is also needed to the potential displacement of this opportunity. The Council’s borough-wide parking review vehicles to other station car parks such as and particularly Delamere. identified key actions including the development of a joint strategy for Helsby and Frodsham in relation to station parking. The policy has been amended to reference the parking review and provide support for improvements to car parking to serve both Helsby and Frodsham stations. 1591, 1641 New car parking provision at Helsby and Frodsham stations needs to be The Council recognises the importance of improving facilities at prioritised due to the reinstatement of the Halton Curve. Helsby to support the introduction of new services via the Halton Curve and has raised the need with the rail industry to respond to this opportunity. The Council’s borough-wide parking review identified key actions including the development of a joint strategy T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response for Helsby and Frodsham in relation to station parking. The policy has been amended to reference the parking review and provide support for improvements to car parking to serve both Helsby and Frodsham stations. 1740 A better outcome would be achieved by focussing time and resources The Council is working on developing the Strategic Outline Business towards developing and campaigning for electrification at main stations Case for the development of Chester as an important regional hub and feeding into the Northern Hub. station, as part of the Chester City Gateway. Policy CH 3 already provides support for the Chester City Gateway and identifies the improvement of car parking at Chester station as a priority. However, Policy T4 has been amended to include support for capacity improvements at Chester station (referencing policy CH 3) including car parking, increasing connectivity and reducing journey times. 1932 There is an urgent need for a rail connection between Northwich and Comment noted. The re-opening of the Sandbach to Northwich line Crewe, which could be served either by a passenger service on the to passenger traffic is already included in Local Plan (Part One) current Northwich - Middlewich - Crewe freight line (ideally with a new policy STRAT 10 as a scheme that the Council supports. The station at Gadbrook Park) or by connecting Northwich and Hartford Middlewich line services, improvements at Hartford and rail links to stations. There is also a need for a direct rail link from Northwich to Warrington feature within the Council’s strategic priorities for rail Warrington Bank Quay, to facilitate northbound journeys. improvements for the borough and adjoining areas. Amended Policy N3 requires that new employment development on land to the south-west of Gadbrook Park should be planned in such a way that supports improvements and enhancements to the rail network and safeguards sufficient land for a railway station (supporting the re-opening of the Sandbach-Northwich line to passenger traffic). 1936, 2749 The Local Plan does not place enough importance regarding Frodsham The Council’s borough-wide parking review identified key actions Train Station and the very soon approaching Halton Curve project, including the development of a joint strategy for Helsby and which will necessitate more car parking and management. Consultation Frodsham in relation to station parking, the assessment of with residents and councils is needed. potential new sites and/or the conversion of sites for car parking, using additional car parks in the town, and other management measures . The policy has been amended to reference the parking T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response review and provide support for improvements to car parking to serve Frodsham station. 1962, 1974 We fully support the draft policy and recommend that the former The Beeston, Tiverton and Tilstone Fearnall Neighbourhood Beeston Station is added to the list (as identified in the former Chester Development Plan which has just completed examination and is District Local Plan (adopted 2006) policy TR11 for the re-opening of the about to go to referendum, and contains policy T1, which supports station for passenger services). the re-opening of Beeston Railway Station, with adequate nearby parking provision and associated facilities, will be fully supported and protects the site of the former station and immediate environs from development that could compromise the future provision of a new rail station and associated facilities. It is not the place of the Local Plan to repeat policies contained in Neighbourhood Plans, therefore it is not necessary to include Beeston Station into Policy T4. 2422, 2768 The Local Plan should promote Frodsham, Helsby, Delamere and Revised Policy DM 37 Recreational Routeways has been amended Cuddington railways stations as gateways for exploring and visiting the to support the promotion of railway stations as gateways for Sandstone Ridge, and providing appropriate facilities including exploring and visiting recreational routes and the provision of adequate parking, signage, interpretation and information, all enhanced signage, interpretation and information facilities. consistently and appropriately branded. 2213 Include a policy for the Hooton station area, promoting it as an intercity The development of a major-multi-use development around terminus serving the Wirral and Ellesmere Port, and with a major multi Hooton stations is unlikely be to appropriate within the Green Belt. use development associated with it, and helping to fund it. 2701 Consideration should be given to the re-opening of the Tattenhall Road The policy has been amended to support the construction of new Railway Station, to be sited at the bridge close to the Cheshire Ice rail stations (subject to other policies in the plan). Going forward, Cream Farm thereby facilitating public transport to this location. the consideration of any new station proposals will feature within the Council’s strategic priorities for rail improvements for the borough and adjoining areas. 2822 Are the identified transport schemes, designations and allocations The Council is working on developing the Strategic Outline Business appropriate and necessary? Are there any others that should be Case for the development of Chester as an important regional hub included? The Chester Growth Partnership is supporting the delivery of station, as part of the Chester City Gateway. Policy CH 3 already Growth Track 360 and the improvement to rail services through provides support for the Chester City Gateway and identifies the T4 – Railway stations Question 38 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Chester. Including electrification of the network between North Wales, improvement of car parking at Chester station as a priority. Chester, Manchester, Crewe and Liverpool. And supporting faster However, Policy T4 has been amended to include support for services to Manchester, Liverpool and Crewe and ensuring the link to capacity improvements at Chester station (referencing policy CH 3) HS2 in Crewe is maximised. Station capacity and car parking provision in including car parking, increasing connectivity and reducing journey Chester needs to be expanded. times.

T5 – Rail corridors Question 39 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 86, 1284, 926, General support for the draft policy approach. No change necessary. 1048, 1472, 1479, 1594, 1636, 1928, 2702 29 Identify if any of the suggested alternative uses have a reasonable Comment noted. The Council’s strategy, as set out in Part One prospect of implementation within the foreseeable future – if not is it policy STRAT 10, is to safeguard current and disused transport unreasonable to preclude any other development. Mickle Trafford- corridors and Policy T5 provides greater detail and identifies Shotton is already reused as a path/cycleway. specific corridors. As the policy is in conformity with the Local Plan Part One, no change is necessary. 1251 The Helsby/ Mouldsworth line not mentioned in Rail Freight No change necessary. Utilisation Strategy, but it is noted that industrial development has taken place where the line terminates and the track spurs from a line capable of supporting W9 gauge rail. 1254 Support preservation of disused rail corridors as they have the No change necessary. potential to be used for cycling. SA Mitigation measures identified include: The promotion of the use of The promotion of the use of clean technologies and working clean technologies and working practices to further increase benefits practices to further increase benefits to air quality is covered in to air quality (however, this may be covered by other policies); refer other policies in the plan – for example DM 31 - Air quality and to the potential contribution historic railway corridors may make to DM 4 - Sustainable construction. The purpose of the policy is to T5 – Rail corridors Question 39 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response local character and distinctiveness, and encourage protection of their identify corridors and routes safeguarded under Part One policies heritage value; .consider how safeguarded railway corridors can and does not set out criteria on their development. The connect to and benefit more deprived areas to ensure equal access to explanation text refers to policy SOC 5 (which covers safety, the benefits they provide; and consider the design of safeguarded reducing poverty and deprivation and improving access to areas disused railway lines with regard to reducing crime and enhancing of deprivation). The explanation has been amended to also perceptions of safety. include a reference to Part One policy ENV5 which protects heritage assets and the character and setting of areas of significance. HRA Seeks to safeguard land only and does not permit development that is No change necessary otherwise likely to create adverse effects on internationally designated sites.

T 6 – Safeguarding Areas Around Aerodromes Question 40 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2469 The inclusion of an aerodrome safeguarding policy is welcomed. Peel Comment noted and further changes to the policy have been Airport are currently reviewing the draft policy and any comments will consulted with Peel Airports in relation to Liverpool John be provided separately, as soon as is possible. Lennon Airport. 2192 Confirmation of the importance of including a policy on aerodrome Considerations will be given to the structure of the Local Plan safeguarding (Part Two) Publication and the most appropriate section for the The safeguarded areas of Manchester Airport and others in the borough policy to sit in the plan. could influence the type of development allowed in certain areas. Manchester Airport feel that the policy is better placed in the The policy has been amended to include impacts on radar. Development Management section of the plan as the safeguarded area Suggested policy wording has been used in the policy to ensure relates to specific development issues. the text is accurate and concise. The policy could be amended to include impact on radar in addition to the other criteria stated. Agree that it is the Council’s responsibility to consult with the Suggested changes to the wording in the explanation to remove relevant aerodrome repetition and inaccuracies. Manchester Airport would suggest agreeing the final text between the three airports. Thank you for highlighting the civil en-route technical site and Although the safeguarded area is not defined by the Local Authority, it reference has been made to these additional sites in the is their responsibility to consult the aerodrome operator of planning explanation. applications that could potential impact on aircraft safety. Safeguarded areas are not universal and will differ between airports, The policy explains that consultation with relevant aerodromes therefore suggest removing reference to 15km from aerodrome. operators will be required 30km from the relevant aerodrome Would suggest highlighting that aerodrome are subject to change and for wind farm development. Due to the locations of the this will be done by the Aerodrome Safeguarding Authority and not the aerodromes around the borough, it is likely that more than one Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). operator will need to be consulted for wind energy The Local Planning Authority should consult the relevant Aerodrome development. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to show Safeguarding Authority. Although the CAA remains the safety regulator the aerodrome safeguarded area that doesn’t include the wind they do not also require consultation by the LPA and this paragraph can turbine boundary. This is to ensure consistency with other therefore be amended accordingly. aerodromes and not to overload the aerodrome operators with It is worth noting here though that Cheshire West and Chester also applications that are not relevant. The aerodrome safeguarded contains a civil en-route technical site (for which a separate area for wind turbines is a planning constraint on our system, safeguarding map will have been issued). NATS En-Route (NERL), who ensuring that the operators are consulted on wind turbine manages en-route aircraft operations will therefore also require development. An additional criterion has been added to the consulting on certain planning applications and will be a separate wind energy policy, including early engagement with the statutory consultee to the airport’s in these cases. For further operators. information on NERL’s technical safeguarded areas and consultation criteria please contact [email protected]. Additional criteria to waste management, and solar energy Suggestions of wording changes to express more clearly and removal of policies to consider the safeguarded consultation zone and to some facts as they are not applicable to all three airports, therefore comply with this policy. suggest a simple bullet list. With regard to the detail currently shown on the policies map, it is apparent on MAP Change 9 that Manchester Airport’s statutory wind turbine development consultation area, which extends as far as Frodsham and Delamere, is not identified and should therefore be included.

Infrastructure: Question 41

INF1 – ICT and telecommunications Question 41 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 169, 1446, General support for policy approach Comments noted. 1752, 2703 798, 927, Support the alternative option. Rural areas should not be The words ‘where possible’ have been removed from the third 1049, 1638 disadvantaged just because of some potential increased cost. paragraph, so it now states that new development should be accessed The wording is not strong enough, this could be a condition of by fibre to the premise technology…. However, a sentence stating new builds, If like other conditions it would make the ‘where this is not possible, adequate ducting should be provided to development unviable only then, as with other conditions you enable FTTP connection at a later date, unless it can be shown that this would ask the developer to prove the viability of the site, is not economically viable in this location’ as there may be situations especially in rural areas. where FTTP connection cannot be provided initially or where it would prevent the development from coming forward due to costs, for example in very remote locations. 88 The third paragraph should be removed as the type of internet The requirement for broadband access will be retained in order to connection is a commercial matter for the developer. Empty provide an important facility for future occupiers. ducting will attract rats. 1262 Support the alternative option of requiring that new The second paragraph has been amended to state that ‘developers are developments must be accessed by fibre to the premise (FTTP) required to make provision for the installation and maintenance of technology enabling access to superfast broadband speeds of at information connection networks, such as superfast broadband, within least 30 megabits per second. new developments’. The words ‘where possible’ have been removed from the third paragraph, so it now states that new development should be accessed by fibre to the premise technology…. However, a sentence stating ‘where this is not possible, adequate ducting should be provided to enable FTTP connection at a later date, unless it can be shown that hits is not economically viable in this location’ as there may be situations where FTTP connection cannot be provided initially or where it would prevent the development from coming forward due to costs, for example in very remote locations. INF1 – ICT and telecommunications Question 41 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1262 There should be different requirements for FTTP connections, It is not considered necessary to provide different requirements for with all new business developments always required to provide residential and business use classes, as the policy now requires FTTP connections. connections or ducting unless this is not economically viable. 1474, 1480 Proposals should include plans for 24/7 access to all permitted Access for maintenance will be the responsibility of the operator. sites for maintenance and rectifying faults. Requiring access throughout the day and night could result in impacts on residential amenity. 1556 Rural communities should benefit from superfast broad band as The Connecting Cheshire project aims to deliver fibre broadband to soon as possible. Priorities should be set for those communities areas outside the commercial deployment of fibre broadband, that seek to provide modern digital hubs, sympathetically particularly rural areas. designed and developed to blend into a rural environment. The borough is losing younger people, who are looking elsewhere for employment and losing economic growth. The initiatives exemplified in these policies need to be accelerated. 1670 The policy requires prompt action to improve broadband The Connecting Cheshire project aims to deliver fibre broadband to connectivity across the entire Rural area existing properties and businesses in areas outside the commercial deployment of fibre broadband, particularly rural areas. 1598 The importance of digital infrastructure is today as significant as The policy requires access to superfast broadband speeds of at least 30 physical infrastructure and is a key requirement for sustainable megabits per second (or the most recent Government requirements, if growth in all communities. From this point onwards, higher). telecommunications must be seen as the 4th utility. The second paragraph has been amended to state that ‘developers are The stated ambition for 30mpbs is insufficient and just not required to make provision for the installation and maintenance of ambitious enough. Digital services need to be future proofed to information connection networks, such as superfast broadband, within the highest attainable levels (100mbps) if there is not to be a new developments’. widening of the gap between urban and rural telecoms services. The words ‘where possible’ have been removed from the third The wording around the “Council encouraging developers” is paragraph, so it now states that new development should be accessed inadequate and does not reflect the imperative for all citizens to by fibre to the premise technology…. However, a sentence stating been digitally included. Developers 'must' make provision for the ‘where this is not possible, adequate ducting should be provided to installation and maintenance of connection networks or evidence enable FTTP connection at a later date, unless it can be shown that this very special circumstances why this is not physically possible. All is not economically viable in this location’ as there may be situations new developments will be ducted for the provision of where FTTP connection cannot be provided initially or where it would INF1 – ICT and telecommunications Question 41 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response conventional utilities and we must include provision for the 4th prevent the development from coming forward due to costs, for utility to be information services. example in very remote locations. All rural housing development ‘must” have fibre optic to the door Reference could be made to potential locations for telecommunications installed as standard, so that when high speed broadband arrives masts within Neighbourhood Plans, but it is for local communities to in that location, services can be facilitated quickly and at minimal decide the scope and content of their Neighbourhood Plan. cost to the taxpayer. In rural locations, the significance of mobile connectivity cannot be overstated as services today are inadequate, patchy at best and absent in many communities. Local neighbourhood plans must identify suitable locations for masts to improve connectivity 1650 Need improved high speed broadband and mobile connectivity The Connecting Cheshire project aims to deliver fibre broadband to for rural spots in Frodsham town. existing properties and businesses in areas outside the commercial deployment of fibre broadband, particularly rural areas. 1939 Broadband and its speeds need to considered just as important The policy should help to achieve this aim. and a priority as it would be with other infrastructure, less of an afterthought. 2423 ICT and telecommunications installations and associated facilities The policy already states that proposals should have special regard to can have significant impacts, particularly in areas of high the Green Belt and the natural and historic environment where the landscape value, such as ASCVs. The Trust would like to see quality of the landscape / townscape may be particularly sensitive to Policy INF1 strengthened to highlight the sensitivity of ICT and the intrusion of communications infrastructure, including conservation telecommunications developments in ASCVs, and that they must areas and listed building. Further protection to ASCVs will be provided preserve and enhance the landscape character and will not be by other policies in the Local Plan. permitted if they cannot do so. 2470 A significant omission in this Chapter relates to electricity This has been addressed in new policy DM 53 – Energy generation, storage. Electricity storage technologies are going to become storage and heat networks increasingly important, acting as both a balancing mechanism to assist the grid deal with intermittent generating technologies (e.g. solar) and at the smaller scale, as part of the drive toward achieving more energy efficiency. Storage schemes may encompass surface and sub-surface deployment, and a variety of INF1 – ICT and telecommunications Question 41 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response technologies (chemical batteries / flow batteries / flywheels / compressed inert gas). The Council should provide a framework for the potential deployment of such technologies at a variety of scales. 2516 Improved mobile connectivity needs to be prioritised in rural The identification of areas lacking good mobile phone signal and areas. The Council should identify “not-spots” for mobile phone production of a strategy to resolve this is outside the remit of the Local signal and to have a solid strategy for working with the mobile Plan (Part Two). The policy supports mast sharing. networks identifying what service is needed in which area, as well as working with the networks to provide more signal tower infrastructure but where necessary encouraging networks to share existing infrastructure. 2626 Section 9 of the Local Plan (Part Two) is titled ‘Infrastructure’ Affordable housing, community facilities, health facilities, transport and which comprises a single policy relating to ICT and parking are covered within other policies. The location of this policy telecommunications. This policy makes reference to Policy STRAT within the structure of the document will be amended. 11 of Local Plan (Part One) which provides a list of infrastructure, facilities and services which is not intended to be exhaustive including:

 Affordable housing;  Community facilities including pubs, village shops, post offices, village halls, community centres, cultural and youth facilities;  Health and wellbeing facilities  Highway improvements;  Parking facilities;

It is therefore surprising that further reference to these items is not made by Policies in Local Plan (Part Two). We suggest that further provision is made to support and encourage development proposals that can offer such services and infrastructure that are INF1 – ICT and telecommunications Question 41 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response needed by local communities to facilitate sustainable development now and in the future. 2750 Improved high speed broadband connectivity needs to be The policy should help to achieve this aim. The Connecting Cheshire prioritised in rural areas. project aims to deliver fibre broadband to existing properties and businesses in areas outside the commercial deployment of fibre broadband, particularly rural areas. 2769 A minimum provision of 24 Mbps should be a requirement of The 30 Mbps requirement sets a realistic target, slightly beyond the new development, to reflect the European definition of standard definition of ‘superfast’. superfast. However, the BT commercial model is failing the rural The words ‘where possible’ have been removed from the third area at present and that the Connecting Cheshire model is also paragraph, so it now states that new development should be accessed failing to provide a minimum of 24 Mbps. by fibre to the premise technology…. However, a sentence stating ‘where this is not possible, adequate ducting should be provided to enable FTTP connection at a later date, unless it can be shown that this is not economically viable in this location’ as there may be situations where FTTP connection cannot be provided initially or where it would prevent the development from coming forward due to costs, for example in very remote locations.

General (Development Management): Question 42

DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 719, 928, 990, Policy/approach is supported Comments noted. However, in response to other comments policy 1050, 1286, DM1 will be deleted and the content covered within other relevant 1554, 1616, policies in the plan. 1640, 1773, 1707, 2707, 190 Re: ‘It takes full account of the local characteristics of the Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be development site’. These characteristics should explicitly include deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the topography. plan. Topography one of the characteristics used to identify the different Landscape Character Types across the borough in the Landscape Strategy. Revised Policy GBC2 ‘Protection of landscape’ states that regard should be given to this guidance to inform appropriate design, siting and mitigation measures in line with landscape context and character. In addition, it is considered that topography is inherent in character of an area which is given full consideration under new policy DM 3 – Design, Character and Visual Amenity. 250, 881, The policy is long and complex and has too many criteria – suggest Comments noted. The policy has been deleted and the criteria are 1942 it is split into separate policies or topic areas for environmental, now covered by the relevant environmental, economic, and social economic, and social criteria. development management policies elsewhere in the plan. Where One respondent requested that the policy includes a balancing financial and community benefits’ are expected the relevant policy caveat, relevant to benefits and harm – as contained within NPPF. provides clarity and guidance on where they should be directed. The One respondent was concerned that it does not make clear what balancing of benefits to harm is inherent in the consideration of ‘financial and community benefits’ are expected or where such planning applications through the development management contributions should be directed. process and is adequately covered in Part One policy STRAT 1 – Sustainable development. As such, a specific policy reference is not necessary. 89, 1857, Policy is too long, overly restrictive and unnecessary because it Comments noted. In response to these and other comments policy 2031, 2262, replicates other policies in the plan and is not consistent with DM1 will be deleted and the content covered within other relevant DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2351, 2471, national policy. policies in the plan. 2526, 2585, Five respondents were concerned that the prioritisation of 2611, 2642, brownfield land goes further than Part One policy STRAT 1 and is 2691 inconsistent with NPPF. Five respondents objected to the element of the policy relating to best and most versatile agricultural land on the basis that it is imprecise and poorly defined in terms of the search for alternative sites. Three respondents suggested that the policy criteria should be amended to make it clear that it is applied “where relevant” /applicable to individual sites. Four respondents were concerned that the policy adopts and approach to traffic impact which does not reflect national planning policy. One respondent objected to the reference and approach to housing mix and type being inflexible and inconsistent with national policy. One respondent objected to the introduction of renewable and low-carbon energy criteria that will be covered through building regulations. One respondent was concerned how the element of the policy which seeks to protect soil structure or permeability from long- term adverse impacts, would be applied. 170 Many of the criteria (e.g. integrity of water supplies, damage to Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be environment, noise, effects on domestic properties and erosion) deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the should be considered closely when further debate about fracking plan. Criteria relevant to and the process for assessing proposals for as a future energy supply option takes place. exploration, appraisal or production of hydrocarbons, are set out in detail in policy M4. 1255, 2424, Suggest that policy goes further and imposes a requirement on Comments noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will 2770 new developments whereby rainwater is captured, stored and re- be deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response used to flush toilets on the property. Include the use of the plan. Revised policy DM 41 prioritises the use of Sustainable Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems as a preferred alternative to Drainage Systems, while revised policy DM 4 encourages the conventional methods of disposing of grey water (DM33). inclusion of sustainable design features to achieve the highest levels of water efficiency. 1468 Building/ development should not be allowed on flood plains. Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the plan. Policy ENV 1 of the Local Plan (Part One) already seeks to reduce flood risk and avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding by directing development away from areas at high risk. Revised policy DM 40 states that development on functional floodplains will not be allowed unless in exceptional circumstances such as for essential infrastructure or where development is water compatible, in line with national policy. 1599 Policy is inadequate in relation to requirements for car parking Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be requirements. Even if development is in a sustainable location, it deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the needs to have enough parking spaces. New developments should plan. Revised policy T 6 – Parking and access has been amended to also make adequate provision for new footways, which must be of state that parking must be provided in line with the minimum 3m in width, to accommodate safe use of mobility devices and requirements set out in the Council’s recently adopted Parking push/wheel chairs (DM20) and must be designed to adequate Standards SPD. The policy also sets out that access to and around a standards to accommodate future adaptation for ill health and development site must be provided to meet the needs of people older residents (DM14 eg. door and stair width). with disabilities. Revised policy DM 20 Mix and type also requires new housing to be built to be capable of future adaptation and achieve a minimum of Category 2 (Building Regulations 2010). 2071 The Local Plan should encourage/require the provision of solar Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be energy on the roofs of new (or refurbished) buildings to offset deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the their energy use and save land. The policy could refer to achieving plan. Revised policy DM 4 encourages the inclusion of sustainable at least the AECB Gold Standard. design features and supports the inclusion of on-site renewable energy generation. However, the policy does not include specific requirements relating to energy performance in new dwellings but seeks to secure sustainable design features to maximise resilience DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response and adaptation to climate change. 2252 The "soils" criterion is not wholly sound as it focuses solely on Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be "impacts on soil structure or permeability" rather than the deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the conservation of soil resources. Therefore it should be worded as plan. Revised policy GBC2 ‘Protection of landscape’ includes a follows: “Soil resources will be protected and used sustainably to criterion that seeks to protect soil resources. retain as many ecosystem services as possible, in line with accepted best practice.” and placed next to the best and most versatile agricultural land criterion. Minerals policies DM57/58 should be amended as follows: “Developments must also meet all relevant criteria set out in Policy DM 1." Or an over-arching policy specifically on Soil and Agricultural Land Quality could be considered: Development of "best and most versatile" agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification system*) will not normally be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that: a) The need for the development clearly outweighs the need to protect such land in the long term, or b) In the case of temporary / potentially reversible development (e.g. minerals), that the land would be reinstated to its pre-working quality, and c) There are no suitable alternative sites on previously developed (brownfield) or lower quality land. The Council will require all applications for development to include realistic proposals to demonstrate that soil resources were protected and used sustainably, in line with accepted best practice. 2316 The first bullet point should distinguish between the effect on Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be living conditions / residential amenity on daylight and sunlight. deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the plan. New policy DM 2 – Impact on residential amenity includes criteria on light. 2381 Development adjacent to waterways should promote and provide Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response access to waterway corridors, provide active frontages and seek to deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the conserve and enhance the waterway corridor and its related plan, including revised policiesDM 37 and DM38. infrastructure and accord with policies DM27 and DM29. 2556 Not all criteria are applicable to minerals development and clarity Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be should be provided on which criteria and policies are relevant to deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the minerals safeguarding/ extraction and Oil and Gas Policy DM50. In plan. Criteria relevant to and the process for assessing proposals for particular: exploration, appraisal or production of hydrocarbons, are set out in Bullet 2 – wording ‘does not harm’ is unclear and does not provide detail in policy M4. for mitigation or allow for temporary effects. Bullet 10 – include additional wording so that temporary development – such as mineral operations can be undertaken on best and most versatile agricultural land. Bullet 14 – Oil and gas development would struggle to comply with this, suggest caveat with ‘where appropriate’. Bullets 15, 17, 21 – criteria are not appropriate in all instances. Bullet 16 – seek further clarity on how this will be delivered. Bullets 22 – amend to ‘It seeks to retain…” 2751 Sustainable transport is a key issue for Frodsham. Comment noted. 2840 Consider the removal of the wording “…without creating an Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be unacceptable impact on economic viability” from bullet 5 of the deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the policy. plan. 2632 Sensitive residential land uses have the potential to come forward Comment noted. In response to other comments policy DM1 will be for development within close proximity to a number of Royal deleted and the content covered within other relevant policies in the Mail’s properties at: plan. However, it should be noted that existing Part One policy ECON1 includes “Redevelopment to non-employment uses will be  Chester Delivery Office and Chester Brook Street Vehicle Park permitted where the proposed use is compatible with existing  Ellesmere Port retained employment uses in the locality”. The Royal Mail will  Northwich Delivery Office and Neston Delivery Office continue to be consulted at future consultation stages in the Local  Frodsham Delivery Office Plan process. DM 1 – Development management Question 42 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Tarporley Delivery Office/Garage

The respondent requests the impact on Royal Mail’s existing operations is taken into account in the assessment of future land allocations and the following criterion is added to the policy: “It is compatible with neighbouring land uses and does not prejudice operations at existing employment sites in the vicinity of the new development".

Economic growth, employment and enterprise: Question 42 to 46

DM2 – redevelopment and refurbishment of employment land and premises Question 43 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2708, 1686, The policy is generally supported. The Council welcomes the support for the draft policy. 1617, 1600, 1449, 1051, 929 1858, 856 The requirement for a 12 month marketing period and evidence The Council disagrees with the comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) has of attempts to let or sell the premises for employment use at a been prepared in line with NPPF. NPPF paragraph 51 relates to planning reasonable rate with no tenant or purchaser being found should applications for change of use to residential from commercial (currently be removed; in the B use classes) “where there is an identified need for additional - This is not compliant with NPPF para 51 would delay bringing housing in the area, provided there are not strong economic reasons brownfield development. why such a development would be inappropriate”. - If there was less than a 5 year supply then this could delay The Local Plan (Part Two) makes provision for sufficient housing land the release of brownfield land and lead to greater pressure allocations to meet the Borough wide requirements established in the on greenfield sites. Local Plan (Part One). The Local Plan takes a positive approach towards - not compliant with Local Plan (Part One) which encourages sustainable economic development in the Borough, that takes account the reuse of brownfield land. of the role of different areas. The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies of the development plan including Local Plan (Part One) STRAT1 Sustainable development; STRAT2-9 Spatial Strategy and Local Plan (Part Two) DM1 Development of previously developed land and the urban regeneration policies in the Plan. The Council has made sufficient housing land to be available for development over the plan period. The Council currently has a healthy 5 year housing land supply. In addition the Council is required to prepare a brownfield land register to encourage the appropriate reuse of previously developed land for housing, where this is compatible with other policies in the plan. 2074 It is unclear if all the policy criteria have to be adhered to. The Council agrees with the comments and the policy will be amended to provide clarity. DM2 – redevelopment and refurbishment of employment land and premises Question 43 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2472, 2263 Draft Policy DM2 is not consistent with the national planning The Council notes the comments. The Council has reviewed retained policy in the NPPF, which confirms that planning policies should employment allocations through the Employment Land Study (2013), avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA, 2017) use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used and the Land Allocations Background Paper (2017) in the context of for that purpose (paragraph 22). NPPF paragraph 22. It is not intended to carry forward historic/legacy allocations employment where there is no reasonable prospect of The redevelopment of redundant or underutilised employment employment development within the plan period. sites in key urban areas can have a significant role in prompting The Local Plan (Part Two) makes provision for employment land and supporting regeneration initiatives – such as at Rossfield Park allocations over the plan period 2010-2030. This is necessary to meet in Ellesmere Port. the requirements of Local Plan (Part One) for at least 365ha borough wide, to provide for a range of sizes and types of site. The Council considers that where land allocations are required to meet the strategic development needs to 2030 identified through Part One, they should have sufficient protection from alternative forms of development. The policy should be read alongside other policies of the development plan. The Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT1 encourages the use and redevelopment of previously developed land and buildings that are in sustainable locations and are not of high environmental value. Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM1 Development of previously developed land supports the redevelopment of redundant or underutilised sites where it would not conflict with other policies of the plan, e.g. employment allocations. Local Plan (Part Two) policies also support regeneration schemes in specific centres. The policy should be read alongside Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON1 states that redevelopment of sites to non-employment uses should be compatible with existing retained employment uses in the locality. The redevelopment of land should also have regard to other development restrictions/constraints, in line with other policies of the plan (e.g. hazardous restrictions, nature conservation, flood risk, historic assets, design, character and visual amenity). DM2 – redevelopment and refurbishment of employment land and premises Question 43 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2472, 2263, Criteria 2 of the draft policy stipulates that redevelopment of The Council notes the comments. The policy should be read alongside 91 existing employment land will only be permitted where, "…there other policies in the plan (please see above response). The Council is no overall reduction in the employment potential on the site". supports the reuse of previously developed land for an appropriate mix This criterion is incompatible with the NPPF which indicates that of uses in line with Local Plan (Part Two) DM1 Development of existing employment sites should not be protected indefinitely. previously developed land and the regeneration policies in the plan. NPPF is clear that applications for alternative uses of land or The policy should also be read alongside DM3 Design, character and buildings, "…should be treated on their merits having regard to visual amenity, which would support development that makes a positive market signals and the relative need for different land uses to contribution to the visual appearance of the area or would lead to support sustainable local communities". The second bullet point environmental improvements. This would be considered on a case by should be deleted and a criterion is added to explain that the case basis through individual planning applications. The policy is Council will give regard to market signals and the relative need therefore amended to remove this criteria. for different land uses to support sustainable local communities. The redevelopment of land to retail uses, must be considered in line Criteria 4 is too inflexible and unsound as it restricts alternative with Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON2 and the retailing strategy of the uses coming forward. development plan. “The proposal would lead to physical or environmental improvements to the area for continued employment use” 1617 It is recommended that the policy should recognise that there The Council notes the comments. The policy should be read alongside may be other reasons which mean that it is more sustainable that other policies of the development plan. The Local Plan (Part One) policy a site be taken out of employment than retained as unused STRAT1 encourages the use and redevelopment of previously developed brownfield employment land (e.g. the use for the site is no longer land and buildings that are in sustainable locations and are not of high appropriate for the employment use it was designed for due to environmental value. Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM1 Development of external global market factors). It is recommended that the previously developed land supports the redevelopment of redundant or policy includes provisions for the decision maker to consider underutilised sites where it would not conflict with other policies of the other criteria on a case-by-case basis so as not to preclude the plan, e.g. employment allocations. Local Plan (Part Two) policies also delivery of development which helps meet wider sustainability support regeneration schemes in specific centres. objectives. 2074 The current wording excludes the consideration of possible The Council notes the comments. benefits for the local economy and employment opportunities The policy should be read alongside other policies in the plan. The Local arising from any change of use. This ignores the potential Plan (Part One) policy allows for redevelopment to non-employment scenario whereby alternative uses may have a positive net uses where it is demonstrated that the continued use of the premises DM2 – redevelopment and refurbishment of employment land and premises Question 43 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response impact for employment and the local economy. A prime example for employment use is no longer commercially viable or of this scenario is of the sites requirement for enabling environmentally acceptable. development and making efficient use of brownfield land. 2074 Site specific comments are provided on Winnington Business Employment and housing land allocations have been reviewed through Park, Winnington Ave, Northwich. Planning application to be the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA, 2017) submitted for mixed commercial and residential use. and the Land Allocations Paper (2017). Detailed policies are on land allocations for Northwich are set out in N3 Housing Land Allocations and N4 Employment land provision in Northwich. The Council supports mixed use developments as set out in Local Plan (part One) STRAT1. Additional policy criteria will be included to reference STRAT1 and to note allow for proposals that are necessary to secure additional employment development that would not otherwise be viable. The Council notes that there is a planning application pending for this site. Planning applications will be considered on a case by case basis in line with the relevant policies in the development plan and any site specific issues identified. 2467 Insufficient support is provided to existing businesses and The Employment Land supply for the Borough provides for a range of employers to expand and invest in their companies both within sites and types of employment land Borough wide. This includes land existing centres and elsewhere. Suitable support and allocations to meet future growth requirements and the expansion mechanisms should be included in the Local Plan. needs of specific employers in appropriate locations. This applies to employment uses falling within use classes B1, B2 and B8. Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON1 supports existing businesses, encourages indigenous business growth and proposals to attract new inward investment. The explanation to the policy will be amended to provide further reference to Local Plan (part One) policy ECON1. The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the local plan. Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON2 supports the long term vitality and viability of the borough’s centres and sets out the approach to retailing in the borough. DM2 – redevelopment and refurbishment of employment land and premises Question 43 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response The Council supports local communities to bring forward Neighbourhood Plans for their areas. This provides a further opportunity to support existing businesses and employers through the Neighbourhood Plan policies. 2771 Does not recognise the amendments to the GDPO and is The GDPO allows for changes between specified use classes without the therefore contrary to national policy. need for planning permission. Whilst a change of use might not need permission, any external building work associated with a change of use may still require planning permission. Other restrictions may also apply. The Council notes the comments and the amendments to the General Permitted Development Order 2015. The explanation will be amended to reference the General Permitted Development Order. The policy will apply where planning permission is sought for development that is not covered under permitted development. 2893 The policy provides too much emphasis on the protection of The Council notes the comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) makes employment land allocations and should show more flexibility. provision for employment land allocations over the plan period 2010- 2030. This is necessary to meet the requirements of Local Plan (Part One) for at least 365ha borough wide, to provide for a range of sizes and types of site. The Council considers that where land allocations are required to meet the strategic development needs to 2030 identified through Part One, they should have sufficient protection from alternative forms of development.

DM3 – New agricultural buildings Question 44 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2709 General support provided for the policy. The Council welcomes the general support for the policy. 1644, 1052 The policy should include the need to withdraw permitted Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 21a-017- development rights (in perpetuity rather than 10 years) to 20140306 relates to the use of planning conditions to restrict the future prevent the conversion of the building to another use use of permitted development rights or changes of use. The guidance DM3 – New agricultural buildings Question 44 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response (explanation para 10.17) states “Conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. The scope of such conditions needs to be precisely defined, by reference to the relevant provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, so that it is clear exactly which rights have been limited or withdrawn”. The Council considers that it is appropriate to consider whether there is justification to withdraw permitted development rights on a case by case basis, as included in the explanation. It is not appropriate to include this requirement in the policy as planning guidance states “It is important to ensure that conditions are tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than standardised or used to impose broad unnecessary controls”. The use of conditions should meet the 6 tests set out in NPPF paragraph 206. 1607 The policy is overly restrictive and limited in its explanation in Please refer to the above comments regarding paragraph 10.17 and the 10.17. This should not limit the opportunity to use a building for use of conditions to withdraw permitted development rights. agricultural or rural diversification scheme. The policy needs to be read alongside other relevant policies of the Local Plan in relation to rural diversification: - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 Green Belt and Countryside - Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM4 Rural Diversification - Local Plan (Part Two) policy STRAT9 supports the reuse of rural buildings, particularly for economic purposes.

The policy explanation has been amended to reference the General Permitted Development Order. The Local Plan (Part Two) takes account of NPPF paragraph 28 and promotes the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. 2352 Fails to recognise the amendments to the General Permitted The Council notes the comments and the amendments to the General DM3 – New agricultural buildings Question 44 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response Development Order (GDPO) and is contrary to national policy Permitted Development Order 2015. The explanation will be amended to reference the General Permitted Development Order. 2473, 2772 In relation to the criteria which relate to harm to the character of The Council agrees with the comments. The policy is amended to “have the Countryside, it is important to acknowledge agricultural regard to the needs of the business”. This will be considered on a case building should be appropriate in scale to modern agricultural by case basis through individual planning applications. business needs and activities. It is requested that the policy is amended to read “having regard to the needs of the business, the proposal must be appropriate in scale….”

DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response 2710, 2579, General support for the policy on rural diversification. The Council welcomes the support for the policy. 1780, 1690, 2425, 932, 720 2612 Policy DM4 is negatively worded. The policy requires any application The Council notes the comments. The policy wording has been to be consistent with Policy STRAT9 of the Part One Local Plan as reviewed and amended where necessary to plan positively for new well as eight listed criteria, some of which we consider to be development in line with NPPF. inappropriate and unnecessary. Please refer to comments below in relation to specific criteria within the policy. 2417, 2355 Reference to “traditional” land based businesses should be The Council notes the comments. The policy wording and removed. explanation has been amended to relate to “Proposals for the diversification of agricultural and other land based rural businesses” Paras 10.18-10.20 – amend to include references to rural businesses to align with the NPPF, paragraph 28, bullet 2 which; “promotes the and not limit to farm based or agricultural business development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses” DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response Tight scope of the policy (traditional) does not provide positive The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies of the support to larger rural businesses (e.g. Blakemere). NPPF para 28 development plan that support the sustainable growth and relates to all types of rural enterprise and the policy wording should expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both be reviewed. through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings (NPPF, Paragraph 28, bullet 1). In particular; DM4 should be revised to apply to all types of rural business and - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 8 provides for the small scale enterprise. The thrust of this revised policy should be to protect the expansion of existing employment sites and new employment contribution that all rural business and enterprise makes to the rural sites within or on the edge of key service centres outside the economy and, where appropriate, provide support for sustainable green belt, to be defined through the Local Plan (Part Two) or economic growth where it does not give rise to unacceptable harm Neighbourhood Plans. The Local Plan (Part Two) allocates to the countryside, or other strategic policies of the plan (such as the employment land in the rural area to meet this requirement. protection of the retail function of town centres). - STRAT9 supports; development with an operational need for a countryside location; small scale and low impact farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site, location and setting of the area; the reuse of rural buildings particularly for economic purposes; and the expansion of existing buildings to facilitate the growth of established businesses proportionate to the nature and scale of the site and its setting. - Local Plan (Part Two) identifies large commercial sites in the green belt (e.g. Urenco, Capenhurst). In line with NPPF and the retail hierarchy in ECON2 and to support the vitality and viability of the Borough’s town centres, the Council applies a town centre first approach to proposals for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses. 2417 The reasoned justification to draft policy DM4 (paragraph 9.21) the Sites have been reviewed through the HELAA (2017) and Land plan sets out a positive objective to support rural business and Allocations Paper (2017) and this makes policy recommendations for enterprise; however, this is not reflected in the more restrictive allocations in the Local Plan (Part Two). The Council makes provision policy which implies that this only relates to relatively small-scale for sufficient housing and employment land to meet the Borough farm diversification . wide requirements. Blakemere Village enterprise has grown significantly to the extent DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response that policy DM4 does not appear to be relevant. Nevertheless, and Blakemere is located in the countryside outside of the defined as evidenced in the Vision Document, rural business and enterprise settlement boundary for Cuddington and Sandiway (STRAT8, R1 is often fragile and it is necessary for business to have flexibly to identified settlements in the rural area). protect their continued viability, respond to market changes and where necessary diversify. The Vision, Blakemere Village, Planning applications will be considered on a case by case basis and Cuddington (September 2016) provided. The site is promoted for on their merits. Development proposals should be in accordance allocation for mixed use development (retail, leisure, residential and with the development plan unless material considerations indicate extra care accommodation). otherwise. 2579, 2332, Criteria 1 – Farm plans are bureaucratic. Not all rural businesses are The Council agrees with the comments that not all rural businesses 93 farms; amend to read “farm, estate, woodland or business plans”. are ‘farms’. The policy has been amended to relate to “agricultural and other land based rural businesses” and the criteria in the policy It is unclear what role or justification there is to produce a farm plan. has been amended to read; “farm, estate, woodland or business It is likely to add unnecessary cost to the planning process for plans which will outline the business profile, present and proposed farmers/estate operators, and potentially delay or prevent activities, and its environmental and amenity effects” and moved to investment. Further detail is requested on the aims and the explanation. requirements of this policy criterion. Government guidance (DEFRA, 2012) for ‘Farm Business and financial planning’ and ‘diversifying farming businesses’ provides guidance on farm business plans to support future growth opportunities and farming operations. Applicants are ‘encouraged’ to provide this information to inform decision making on a planning application and the details can form part of a supporting planning statement. It is not the intention to add unnecessary costs or to delay the decision making process. The explanation to the policy is further amended to state the farm, woodland or business plans should be proportionate to the scale of the proposed development. The policy criteria is amended to reference the continued viability of the land based business. 2355, 2612 Criteria 2 – to limit development to utilise existing buildings is The Council disagrees with this comment. The policy seeks to unnecessary and inappropriate constraint that is not consistent with promote sustainable development in rural areas that respect the NPPF (paragraph 28), STRAT 9 or criteria 4 & 5 of this Policy and character and beauty of the countryside, in line with NPPF paragraph DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response paragraph 10.21. 17. The policy criteria states “where it can be shown that no suitable Reword to include new and replacement buildings. buildings are available, any proposals for new buildings shall be Requires further definition and flexibility to expand or replace subject to STRAT9”. existing agricultural buildings which may be no longer fit for The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the purpose. development plan; - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 supports the reuse of a rural building, particularly for economic purposes. The Council considers that the potential for development to utilise an existing rural building for economic use should be explored in the first instance. This would use an existing resource and reduce potential impacts on the countryside or environment. - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 would allow for small scale and low impact rural / farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site, location and setting of the area and replacement buildings. It is not considered necessary to duplicate the requirements of policy STRAT9 regarding replacement buildings. Amended Policy DM6 Agricultural Buildings should be considered for the erection of new agricultural buildings requiring planning permission. 2612 Criteria 3 is generally supported The Council welcomes the support for this part of the policy. This information has been amended to be included within the explanation. 93, 2612 Criteria 4 - more flexible in its approach to new development which The policy seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas are located within the main built up area of the farm. that respect the character and beauty of the countryside, in line with NPPF paragraph 17. It states that “where it can be shown that no All existing buildings have to be used before other could be built suitable buildings are available, any proposals for new buildings shall which restricts the growth of the enterprise. The policy should be be subject to the Policy STRAT9”. more supportive of farm diversification. The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the development plan; DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 supports the reuse of a rural building, particularly for economic purposes. The Council considers that the potential for development to utilise an existing rural building for economic use should be explored in the first instance. This would use an existing resource and reduce potential impacts on the countryside or environment. - Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 would allow for small scale and low impact rural / farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site, location and setting of the area and replacement buildings. No further amendments required to this part of the policy. 2612 Criteria 5 – would prevent sustainable development. Planning The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies of the permission should be granted provided that the use will provide a development plan. function which is closely related to traditional local farming Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 requires development proposals activities, and its scale does not detrimentally impact local amenity, to be small scale and low impact appropriate to the site, location and or have an adverse effect on ecology, landscape, character, or setting of the area. It is not considered necessary to duplicate heritage, or the highway network STRAT9, therefore reference to ‘small in scale’ will be deleted. The policy wording has been reviewed and amended where necessary to plan positively for new development in line with NPPF. 2612 Criteria 6 is generally supported The Council welcomes the support for this part of the policy. 2773, 2612, Criteria 7 should be deleted – application of conditions is governed The use of planning conditions is set out in Planning Practice 2355 by planning law. Lack of detail to support this criteria Guidance (Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 21a-020-20140306). This artificially restricts free enterprise in the rural area. The word Guidance is provided on “Is it acceptable for a local planning ‘acceptable’ is undefined. Clarify what is ‘acceptable’ and ‘small authority to explain in their Local Plan where conditions may be scale’ in this instance. used?” Identifying the circumstances in the Local Plan where consideration will be given to using conditions can add certainty to the process. However, it is still necessary to consider whether conditions would be justified in the particular circumstances of each proposed development, as a Local Plan policy cannot be used to justify a condition that does not meet the 6 tests. DM4 – Rural Diversification Question 45 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of Issue Raised Council Response The Council considers that it is necessary to reference conditions within the policy, to control future growth and expansion and in relation to the nature of activities taking place. Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9 requires development proposals to be small scale and low impact appropriate to the site, location and setting of the area. It is not considered necessary to duplicate STRAT9, therefore reference to ‘small in scale’ and ‘acceptable’ will be deleted. 2612 Criteria 8 – unnecessary duplication and should be deleted The Council agrees with the comments. These issues are covered through other policy criteria. 1646, 1053 Controls in the policy should be better defined The Council notes the comments. The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the Local Plan. The Policy criteria have been amended where necessary to clarify the approach through the Local Plan (Part Two). 2425 Proposals for rural diversification within and adjacent the Sandstone The Council will consider the need for planning obligations on a case Ridge, a planning charge should be levied to support the upkeep, by case basis, through specific planning applications. enhancement and enjoyment of the special features. National Planning Practice Guidance states “Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework”.

DM 5 – Equestrian development Question 46 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2711, 1784, Support the policy No change necessary. 1691, 1608, 1649, 1054, 933 2356 This sentence should be re-drafted.10.23 There is no national Policy Noted. Paragraph 10.23 (new paragraph 9.44) builds on Local Plan objective to protect the openness of countryside, this objective Policy (Part 1) STRAT9. The wording of paragraph 9.47has also been relates only to green belt. The sentence should be re-drafted to amended to read: “In order to protect the openness of the Green make this clear. We would suggest that the words “or appropriate” Belt and the character of the countryside…” are added to the second sentence so that it reads “where this is not possible or appropriate. 94 How can you have stables without buildings? How many existing Misinterpretation of bullet 3 of the Policy. The policy excludes new rural buildings are suitable for conversion? They will be scattered as buildings which may harm the existing landscape through isolated or there will be fields all round them. The existence of similar land uses scattered development. This bullet has now been replaced with should not be a bar to further similar uses. bullets 8, to clarify the matter. 2427 The Trust would like the policy to be strengthened to specifically Not appropriate funding charge – The Community Infrastructure Levy prevent sub-division of fields and the retention and use of is a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool traditional boundary features. Where proposals for equestrian for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver development are allowed within and adjacent to the Cheshire infrastructure to support the development of their area. It came into Sandstone Ridge, a planning charge should be levied to support the force on 6 April 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy upkeep, enhancement and enjoyment of the special features and Regulations 2010. Section 106 Grant Funding. Under S106 of the qualities of the area. Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, contributions can be sought from developers towards the costs of providing community and social infrastructure, the need for which has arisen as a result of a new development taking place. The comment regarding fencing has been noted. However, Paragraph 10.26 has now been replaced with paragraph 9.50 in order to guide this matter. Anything more stringent would not be enforceable. 2356, 2774 Bullet point 4 ignores that in many areas equine businesses are Buildings and ancillary features must not be prominent in, or clustered together (i.e. Harthill, Parkgate etc.). Such businesses detrimental to the rural scene. When assessing a proposal, Council DM 5 – Equestrian development Question 46 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response should not be prevented from operating in close proximity. will take account of density of existing similar developments in the Whole heartedly challenge the fourth bullet point which references vicinity and the cumulative impact of existing and proposed cumulative impact. This fails to consider the fact that such developments on the landscape character of the countryside. Bullet enterprises are indeed often ‘clustered’ i.e. 4 has been replaced and rewritten as part of new bullet 1. Bickerton/Cholmondeley/Harthill and the location of one enterprise Rewrite as follows: should not preclude another nearby. The proposed development would not, either by itself or cumulatively, be detrimental to the character of the rural landscape or visual amenity due to its scale, design, siting or the materials used. This includes consideration of construction materials, boundary treatment, floodlighting, siting of areas of hard standing, new or extended access routes, or other infrastructure related to the equestrian development that could have an adverse impact on the appearance of the landscape. 2356 Concerns relating to the reference “harm to character” in bullet 4. Has been reworded to be more specific in the considerations of As mentioned in answers to other questions it is not consistent with scale, design, siting and materials used. national Policy to seek to exclude all and any harm. Any criteria Bullet 4 has been replaced and rewritten as part of new bullet 1. based polices need to allow for a nuanced rather than binary Rewrite as follows: approach which allows for an overall planning balancing exercise. ‘The proposed development would not, either by itself or cumulatively, be detrimental to the character of the rural landscape or visual amenity due to its scale, design, siting or the materials used…’ 2474 Peel is concerned that this draft policy is overly prescriptive and Council recognise that there may be instances where special subjective and may prevent comprehensive equestrian justification for comprehensive equestrian development exists. In developments coming forward. Peel would welcome the these special circumstances Council will assess the proposal using opportunity for further discussions with the Council about this the same criteria as those set out in STRAT9 of the Local Plan Policy particular policy. (Part1). No amendment to the policy is therefore required.

Town centres: Questions 47 to 50

DM6 – Town centres Question 47 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 721, 1789 Support the policy. Comment noted. No change required.

95 This policy fails to appreciate that town centres will be smaller. An The Retail Study (2016) identified future need and capacity for retail empty shop is a worse frontage than anything else. growth and that some centres needed flexibility to manage less retail development coming forward.

1287 Highways safety cannot be the only criteria for the siting of alfresco Alfresco dining will need to consider other criteria alongside dining/outdoor seating. There should also be criteria that refer to highways. This will be considered when further developing the no harm to the historic environment or to visual amenity. policy. It is anticipated that the Chester Alfresco Dining document will be reviewed to apply to all town centres. The policy on residential development in town centres should refer to the potential conflict with the night-time economy. We should The principle of residential development in the town centre is not be permitting residential development where there is a conflict acceptable. However, it is agreed that this should not prejudice the with the existing or potential night-time economy, and should not function of the town centre, including the night time economy. The be permitting developments that involve extensions to the night- draft policy will be amended to reflect current and future functions time economy where there is a conflict with existing or potential of the town centre. residential amenity. It is not appropriate to include provision of public conveniences as a There should be a policy which encourages the provision of public requirement in this policy. conveniences for both day-time and night-time use.

1362 The policies should go further and provide for sustainable use of The Council is preparing a Parking Strategy to look at issues such as vehicles and other modes of transport. Towns like Frodsham need the availability and pricing of car parks in council control. Planning to ensure sufficient short term car parking is available for shoppers applications for new development will be required to comply with whilst providing other space for shop and office workers. The policy revised Part Two policy T5 includes the requirement for new framework should assist in managing car parking spaces for these developments to meet the parking standards set out in the Council’s DM6 – Town centres Question 47 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response purposes. adopted Supplementary Planning Document.

Particular care is also needed with regard to domestic development The principle of residential development in the town centre is in town centres and in particular the arrangements for cars being acceptable. However, it is agreed that this should not prejudice the parked associated with those occupants or their visitors. Experience function of the town centre, including the night time economy. The shows that anything other than a 1:1 provision of car parking spaces draft policy will be amended to reflect current and future functions per adult occupant at any development is likely to increase the use of the town centre. of the public realm for car parking. There are several locations in Frodsham, near the Town Centre where a short fall in car parking provision for new accommodation will impact the quality of life of other residents and add unreasonably to the existing congestion on residential roads.

1692 There is a need for a Supplementary Planning Document for al fresco Alfresco dining will need to consider other criteria alongside dining particularly as new developments and improvements are highways. This will be considered when further developing the considered. policy. It is anticipated that the Chester Alfresco Dining document will be reviewed to apply to all town centres.

1626 Alfresco activities must be subject to licensing under the Highways Alfresco dining will need to consider other criteria alongside Act. Granting planning permission should be resisted unless on a highways. This will be considered when further developing the temporary basis (which cannot be sustained over time) as this will policy. It is anticipated that the Chester Alfresco Dining document change the designated status of the public highway. Breaches of will be reviewed to apply to all town centres. planning conditions are unworkable to enforce and better managed through a licence arrangement.

2340 The Northwich town centre boundary has not been expanded widely There is no justification to extend the primary shopping area as this enough and request that the proposed boundary be extended to is not in the retail core for Northwich. The Council has considered include the land at Old Warrington Road and 1-13 Station Road, site submissions / promotional material during the preparation of which is currently used for a range of vehicle-related businesses the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) and including for hire and sales, repairs/servicing including MOT testing amended site assessments, constraints and delivery information DM6 – Town centres Question 47 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response and washing and valeting (falling within use class B1, B2 and Sui where appropriate. The HELAA has been used to prepare the Land Generis uses). Comprehensive redevelopment of the entire site for Allocations Background Paper which sets out the Councils approach residential, retail, leisure and commercial uses should be allowed by to making allocations for housing and employment land, and inclusion of this site within the town centre boundary (currently identifies potential sites. located 150m from the proposed town centre boundary and only 250m from the proposed primary shopping area). In addition, the Please see Local Plan Working Group reports dated 26th June 2017 Vale Royal Borough Local Plan designated the land to the west of and 24th July 2017. Old Warrington Road for residential development under policies GSK9K and HS2.9. To provide the maximum flexibility for both sites, it is requested to reinstate this designation and include the land to the east of Old Warrington Road for new residential development.

2218 DM6 and DM7 do not give sufficient recognition to the important Policy ECON 2 in the Local Plan (Part One) provides a town centre role of suburban/district centres in making a wide range of services first approach but also that development should be of an accessible to people in their neighbourhoods, particularly in Chester. appropriate scale that reflects the size and role of each centre. Centres which are suitable for the protection and enhancement of Therefore large stores may not be suitable in local centres depending local services should be named in the same way that rural centres on their size and function are identified, whether or not they are identified on maps. New supermarkets and other large stores should be steered to these The designated local retail centres will be listed within the policy locations in preference to isolated out of town centres with little explanation in further versions of the Local Plan (Part Two). walk in potential. Reference can be made in the policy that NDPs can show local centres for their villages if justified.

DM7 – District and local retail centres Question 48 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 96, 722, 934, Support the policy. Comment noted. No change required. DM7 – District and local retail centres Question 48 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 1055, 1694, 1611, 1651, 1792, 2357, 2775

883 The phrase ‘excessive concentration of non A1 Uses’ needs to be Due to the size and nature of Local Retail Centres, on a small and quantified for each centre as a percentage of units if this policy is local level, it is not considered appropriate to qualify a percentage of work effectively. non-A1 uses across all centres. An excessive concentration can be different in different centres. It is envisaged the Planning Officer will Although these centres are shown on the policy map the boundaries consider an excessive concentration of non-A1 units based on the are unclear. It would be helpful if they were named and listed in the role and function that centre performs within the local area. policy. Noted, the designated local retail centres will be listed within the The viability test in policy DM8 (Local Shops) should also apply in explanation in further versions of the Local Plan (Part Two). DM7 for consistency and add strength to the policy. DM7 should be read alongside the Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON 2, which states that shops and community facilities in local centres should be retained where viable.

2220 DM6 and DM7 do not give sufficient recognition to the important Policy ECON 2 in the Local Plan (Part One) provides a town centre role of suburban/district centres in making a wide range of services first approach but also that development should be of an accessible to people in their neighbourhoods, particularly in Chester. appropriate scale that reflects the size and role of each centre. Centres which are suitable for the protection and enhancement of Therefore large stores may not be suitable in local centres depending local services should be named in the same way that rural centres on their size and function are identified, whether or not they are identified on maps. New supermarkets and other large stores should be steered to these The designated local retail centres will be listed within the policy locations in preference to isolated out of town centres with little explanation in further versions of the Local Plan (Part Two). walk in potential. Reference can be made in the policy that NDPs can show local centres for their villages if justified.

DM8 – Local shops and farm shops Question 49 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 983, 984, Support the policy. Comment noted. However, note that policy DM8 has been deleted 986, 987, and the content included within revised policies DM7 ‘Rural 1709, 1614, diversification of land based businesses’ and DM39 ‘Culture and 1794, 2428, community facilities’. 2712, 2776

97 Farm shops require an access appraisal and parking provision. Access and parking would be covered by revised Part Two policy T5 ‘Parking and Access’ and would be assessed on a site by site basis during the application process, considering STRAT 10 of the Local Plan (Part One).

723 Trade permission should perhaps include animal food and Policy DM8 has been deleted and the content included within equipment, and perhaps agricultural equipment, service and repair revised policy DM7 ‘Rural diversification of land based businesses’ as these functions cannot normally be accommodated in the urban which sets out the range of activities that are covered by the term areas. ‘land based businesses’. In addition, agricultural goods and services could be considered retail uses and would follow that strategy in the Local Plan (Part One) of town centre first. These uses can be contained outside the urban area where they satisfy a sequential test, impact test and would not compromise the vitality and viability of existing centres and comply with STRAT 8 and STRAT 9 of the Local Plan (Part One).

935, 1056, No - The wording “reasonable attempts” needs better defining i.e. 6 Assets of community value (ACV) are acknowledged in revised policy 1652 months. The policy also needs to make reference and take account DM39 as a material consideration in the determination of planning of the "Community Right to Buy" options and Shops registered as applications as well as defining ‘reasonable attempts’ to let or sell for Assets of Community Value. (ACV) a minimum of 12 months, where there is a proposals for a loss of a local shop.

DM8 – Local shops and farm shops Question 49 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 2358 The approach to farm shops in DM8 is too restrictive. Farm shop Farm shops, by their nature are retail uses. The strategy of the Local retail is an accepted leisure offer in modern Britain and is a viable Plan (Part One) has a town centre first approach. It is acknowledged and valid rural diversification enterprise. Clearly development of that retail uses are also required in the rural area that is acceptable new farm shops should not undermine the vitality and viability of in scale and helps the rural community meet their day to day needs. local shops and we support this bullet point in the criteria. The Local Plan also supports farm diversification to support the rural Applicants should be required to demonstrate this point to the economy by supporting ancillary retail that has been produced and satisfaction of the decision taker. The other two bullet points are sourced locally to minimise the impact on the countryside and unnecessarily onerous and restrictive; they should be deleted. protect the vitality and viability of local centres. It should be noted that policy DM8 has been deleted and the content included within revised policy DM7 ‘Rural diversification of land based businesses’ which sets out the circumstances where proposals for retail sales in the rural area will be supported, restricted to those in connection with land-based businesses (defined as agricultural, forestry and horticulture with an emphasis on food production).

2588 Policy DM8 provides little guidance for shop proposals in rural areas. Farm shops, by their nature are retail uses. The strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) has a town centre first approach. It is acknowledged that retail uses are also required in the rural area that is acceptable in scale and helps the rural community meet their day to day needs. The Local Plan also supports farm diversification to support the rural economy by supporting ancillary retail that has been produced and sourced locally to minimise the impact on the countryside and protect the vitality and viability of local centres. It should be noted that policy DM8 has been deleted and the content included within revised policy DM7 ‘Rural diversification of land based businesses’ which sets out the circumstances where proposals for retail sales in the rural area will be supported. 2613 The policy will help to promote the vitality and vibrancy of rural The strategy, set out in the Local Plan (Part One) ECON 2 follows a areas. However, a notable omission is the lack of any guidance for town centre first approach within a retail hierarchy, as stated in the applications which propose to open a new shop. In view of national NPPF. The rural area has been considered during the Local Plan DM8 – Local shops and farm shops Question 49 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response policy, such applications should be viewed positively by the Council. process and local retail centres have been identifies in key service centres. Retail uses within these centres will be considered appropriate. Policy STRAT 8 in the Local Plan (Part One) confirms that provision for new facilities that is appropriate in scale will be supported in key and local centres. It should be noted that policy DM8 has been deleted and the content included within revised policy DM7 ‘Rural diversification of land based businesses’ which sets out the circumstances where proposals for retail sales in the rural area will be supported.

DM9 –Shopfronts Question 50 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 1288, 1710, Support the policy. Comment noted. No change required. 1618, 2713

98 External grills should be prohibited on all shops It is agreed that the policy should be made clearer and that policy ENV 5 High Quality Design and Sustainable Construction and policy ENV 6 Historic Environment from the Local Plan (Part One) needs to be considered in the application process.

936 The design, materials, proportions and colour should relate to the It is agreed that the policy should be made clearer and that policy character of the building as an entity and the character of the ENV 5 High Quality Design and Sustainable Construction and policy locality; this policy needs strengthening to reflect the settlements ENV 6 Historic Environment from the Local Plan (Part One) needs to with designated conservation areas. be considered in the application process.

1057, 1653 No - The design, materials, proportions and colour should relate to It is agreed that the policy should be made clearer and that policy the character of the building as an entity and also to the character of ENV 5 High Quality Design and Sustainable Construction and policy DM9 –Shopfronts Question 50 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response the locality; this policy needs strengthening to reflect the ENV 6 Historic Environment from the Local Plan (Part One) needs to settlements with designated conservation areas. be considered in the application process.

1797 This plan should include Boughton – as an important and highly The retail role and function of Boughton has been acknowledged as visible gateway to the city it needs stricter regulation for shop it has been identified in the Local Plan (Part Two) as a district centre. frontages. DM 9 is intended to cover all shop fronts across the borough. Proposals are expected to satisfy the high quality design policy, ENV 6 in the Local Plan (Part One) as well as reflecting the character of the local area.

2119 Proposals for shopfronts on listed buildings will be subject to listed Agree and will amend the policy accordingly. building consent and therefore this needs to be made clear within this policy. Proposed wording change from Historic England:

 “Where proposals affect listed buildings and are in conservation areas, they will preserve or enhance their character and appearance and that of their setting.  Proposals on listed buildings will be subject to listed building consent.”

Visitor economy: Questions 51 to 52

DM10 – Visitor Accommodation Question 51 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 226 Whilst there are specific policies relating to tourist The Council notes the comments. This policy should be read alongside accommodation there is no particular approach set out in the other relevant policies in the Plan where appropriate. The Council plan to development proposals at tourist attractions across the considers that new visitor accommodation should be should be in line plan area. with the settlement strategy of Local Plan (Part One) and policy ECON3 Visitor Economy. Such attractions are often dependent upon geographical The Publication Draft Local Plan (Part Two) will include policies on the features and therefore their location is fixed, they are not following tourist attractions, where it is anticipated that new footloose. Equally there is often an expectation that development proposals could come forward in the Plan Period, to cover appropriate visitor facilities will be provided commensurate site specific issues: with the site, the visitors it receives and its particular qualities.  EP7 Ellesmere Port Historic Canal Port (National Waterways Museum) It is considered that a standalone policy in respect of visitor  GBC4 Chester Zoo attractions should be included in the Detailed Policies (National  DM13 Oulton Park Trust comments)  N5 Lion Salt Works  CH3 Chester Regeneration areas (Chester Castle and Riverside Areas) supports heritage related tourism in Chester.  DM37 Recreational Routeways (supports proposals that enhance public access and the recreation value, which could include new visitor facilities of an appropriate scale to the location and potential recreational users) Individual development proposals will be considered through the planning application process, on their merits, on a case by case basis. 853 Within the Green Belt new build visitor accommodation and The Council notes and disagrees with the comments. chalet development will be treated as inappropriate NPPF paragraph 89 relates to the construction of ‘new buildings’ as development. This is not consistent with NPPF para 89 that inappropriate in the green belt and sets out exceptions to this including allows for partial or complete redevelopment of Previously the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of Developed Land whether redundant or in continuing use which previously developed sites. Development proposals for chalet type would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green development would be a material change of use of land and would DM10 – Visitor Accommodation Question 51 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response Belt or the purposes of including land within it is not therefore be considered as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore new Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON3 relates to the visitor economy and build visitor accommodation and chalet type development can notes that additional controls will apply in the green belt. Paragraph 6.28 be appropriate development where it involves the states that “Within the Green Belt proposals will have to meet Policy redevelopment of an existing brownfield site. STRAT 9 ‘Green Belt and countryside’ and reasons for very special circumstances will relate to why a development could not be located outside the Green Belt. Camping and caravan sites are considered as tourism development not outdoor recreation”. The provision of visitor accommodation (new build, conversion or expansion) will be in line with the settlement hierarchy of Local Plan (Part One) policies STRAT 2 to STRAT 9 and ensure that the type and scale of accommodation is appropriate to the location within the hierarchy. 2089, 2173, The policy stipulates that visitor accommodation will only be The Council disagrees with the comments. The Local Plan (Part One) and 2359 supported in the countryside where it meets the requirements (Part Two) are written in line with NPPF paragraph 28, which supports a of policy STRAT 9 and utilises existing buildings. prosperous rural community. The approach to this the policy inadvertently conflicts with NPPF paragraph 28 requires local plans to “support sustainable rural NPPF paragraph 28 which supports sustainable rural tourism. tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas…. This implies that accommodation in new buildings or in other This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and forms would not meet the criteria, which in our view would be visitor facilities in appropriate locations”. overly restrictive and not in line with national policy (for The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the Council’s approach to sustainable example, the type of accommodation may not involve buildings development in the Borough through policy STRAT1, and establishes a such as caravan and camping sites). settlement approach through policies STRAT2-9 to identify appropriate The words “and utilise existing buildings” should be deleted or locations, policy ECON3 states proposals should be of a suitable scale, clarification provided that this restriction applies only in the type and protect the character of the countryside. green belt (unless paragraph 89 applies). Policy STRAT9 sets out the types of development that will be permitted in the countryside, including; Suggests should read “where feasible” use existing buildings. - Development with an operational need for a countryside location - Replacement buildings - Small scale and low impact rural / farm diversification schemes appropriate to the site, location and setting of the area DM10 – Visitor Accommodation Question 51 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response - Reuse of rural buildings, particularly for economic purposes, where buildings are of a permanent and substantial construction - The expansion of existing buildings to facilitate the growth of an existing business proportionate to the nature and scale of the site and its setting. Amended Policy DM9 seeks the use of existing buildings but also allows for rural diversification schemes in line with ECON3. The use of existing buildings for utility facilities as part of camping/caravan schemes would be encouraged in line with DM10 and the strategic policies STRAT3-9 of Part One. Caravan and camping sites are a material change of use of land and would be considered further under policy DM11. The Local Plan (Part Two) is in line with both NPPF and the Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies and no amendment is required. 2089 Local Plan does not allocate any leisure facility schemes with The Council disagrees with the comments. The Local Plan (Part One) and holiday accommodation and therefore we question CWaC’s Local Plan (Part Two) set out the Council’s policies on the development strategy for achieving the aspirations of Local Plan Policy ECON and use of land in the Borough to 2030. The plan includes policies to 3. ensure that the provision of visitor accommodation (new build, conversion or expansion) will be in line with STRAT1 sustainable development, the settlement hierarchy of Local Plan (Part One) policies STRAT 2 to STRAT 9 and ensure that the type and scale of accommodation is appropriate to the location within the hierarchy. The plan contains a range of policies to be used in the determination of planning applications. NPPF paragraph 23 states Local Plans should allocate a range of suitable sites to meet the scale and type of retail, leisure, commercial, office, tourism, cultural, community and residential development needed in town centres. The Cheshire Retail Study considers the need for new Leisure facilities in the Borough the 2030 in line with NPPF paragraph 161 and Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON2. This does not identify the need for any additional land allocations for leisure use. In line with NPPF and the retail hierarchy in ECON2 and to support the vitality and viability of DM10 – Visitor Accommodation Question 51 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response the Borough’s town centres, the Council applies a town centre first approach to proposals for retail, leisure and other main town centre uses. In the rural area, there is a site with planning permission, yet to be developed, for a large leisure scheme with visitor accommodation in the Borough. The Fourways quarry site was previously identified as a retained allocation in the Vale Royal Local Plan and at the preferred approach stage under draft policy DM28. This was for a new non-engine powered watersports facility (sailing, sailboarding, canoeing and fishing) and strictly ancillary development (water sports club with changing facilities and a fishing club) and timber chalets to be used in conjunction with the recreational use. This has since been granted planning permission (15/01803/FUL). Land at Moss Wood, Bickley, Malpas also has planning permission for a woodland based attraction including structures, buildings and walkways in connection with use as children's outdoor adventure attraction and educational use (BeWILDerwood, 16/04759/FUL) There is no requirement to identify land allocations for leisure use, including outside of town centres, through the Local Plan (Part Two). 2089 There are no sites for a full comprehensive destination for ‘stay Please refer to the above comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) has been and play’ leisure facilities in CWAC. It is suggested the east of prepared in line with Local plan (Part One) policy STRAT1 ‘sustainable the borough is severely lacking. development’, policies STRAT2-9 on the settlement strategy, policy A comprehensive leisure/recreation scheme is proposed to ECON3 on the visitor economy and ECON2 town centres. There is no make the policy sound it should not be disaggregated (Tatton requirement to identify land allocations for leisure use through the Local Estate Management). Plan (Part Two). Any development proposals should be an appropriate Land to the east of Bostock Green is proposed for allocation. scale that reflects the size and role of each centre and be a suitable scale Alternative policy wording provided to reflect that where a and type for its location. comprehensive leisure/recreation scheme is proposed it should not be disaggregated: The Council does not agree with the proposed amendments to the policy “3. In the countryside, proposals for all types of visitor and no further change to the policy is required. accommodation should be provided in appropriate locations DM10 – Visitor Accommodation Question 51 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response relative to the visitor market that it seeks to serve. Where accommodation is provided to support the leisure and visitor economy in line with the aspirations of policy ECON 3 proposals will be supported;” 99, 2359 The reference to “these settlements” in the final sentence of The Council agrees with the comments. The Policy is amended to state: the Policy is unclear and should be explained or deleted. “Proposals for new build hotels and guest houses outside the boundaries of defined settlements of Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich Winsford, the key service centres or local service centres will not be permitted”

DM11 – Touring caravan and camping sites Question 52 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 2715, 1713, General support for the policy. The Council welcomes the support for the policy. 1059, 938, 725, 100 227 Whilst there are specific policies relating to tourist The Council notes the comments. This policy should be read alongside accommodation there is no particular approach set out in the other relevant policies in the Plan where appropriate. The Council plan to development proposals at tourist attractions across the considers that new visitor accommodation should be should be in line plan area. with the settlement strategy of Local Plan (Part One) and policy ECON3 Such attractions are often dependent upon geographical Visitor Economy. features and therefore their location is fixed, they are not The Publication Draft Local Plan (Part Two) will include policies on the footloose. Equally there is often an expectation that following tourist attractions, where it is anticipated that new appropriate visitor facilities will be provided commensurate development proposals could come forward in the Plan Period, to cover with the site, the visitors it receives and its particular qualities. site specific issues: - EP7 Ellesmere Port Historic Canal Port (National Waterways It is considered that a standalone policy in respect of visitor Museum) attractions should be included in the Detailed Policies (National - GBC1 Chester Zoo Trust comments) - DM13 Oulton Park - N5 Lion Salt Works DM11 – Touring caravan and camping sites Question 52 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response - CH3 Chester Regeneration areas (Chester Castle and Riverside Areas) supports heritage related tourism in Chester. Please refer to Policy DM37 on recreational routeways regarding the provision of visitor facilities of an appropriate scale and type to the location. Individual development proposals will be considered through the planning application process, on their merits, on a case by case basis. 1256 Essential that touring caravan sites have safe access roads. The The Council agrees with the comments. The policy requires proposals for narrow rural roads are not designed for caravans being towed caravan and camping sites to have “good accessibility via major roads and down them and in most instances there is insufficient space for public transport” and “appropriate access, layout and landscaping within safe passing. Many of our rural roads are single lane and totally the site”. The explanation states that “This policy provides criteria to unsuitable for towing vehicles. ensure that sites are suitably located in the borough with regard to main transport routes to limit the number of cars with caravans that travel on the minor rural roads, in the interests of highway safety”. Specific development proposals will be assessed through the planning application process, on their merits, on a case by case basis. 1630 Policy DM11 seems to contradict DM10 in the case of caravan The Council attaches great importance to Green Belts in line with national and camping sites and should apply to all locations whether in planning policy. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent greenbelt or open countryside. urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. NPPF paragraph 87 states “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”. Paragraph 88 of NPPF states; “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON3 relates to the visitor economy and notes that additional controls will apply in the green belt. DM11 – Touring caravan and camping sites Question 52 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response Paragraph 6.28 states that “Within the Green Belt proposals will have to meet Policy STRAT 9 ‘Green Belt and countryside’ and reasons for very special circumstances will relate to why a development could not be located outside the Green Belt. Camping and caravan sites are considered as tourism development not outdoor recreation”. Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM9 is clear, in line with national and local policy, that in the green belt new build visitor accommodation, static caravan and chalet development and proposals for touring caravan and camping sites are inappropriate forms of development. Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM10 applies to development proposals outside the green belt, within the countryside. The explanation to policy DM9 and DM10 has been amended to clarify the approach to new development within the Green Belt. 1630 It is essential that the Council defines “small in scale” to a The Council notes the comments. The scale of development will be specific number and one that reflects the landscape sensitivities dependent on site specific characteristics (e.g. landscaping, topography, of each area. Past applications have been permitted that have services, accessibility, layout etc) and considered on a case by case basis grown to be sizeable operations over time through planning through the planning application process. creep with associated requirements for new amenity blocks, This is in line with Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON3 that states shops and supporting businesses. A definition of scale would be proposals should “be a suitable scale and type for its location” and in the helpful. countryside be “a suitable scale, type and protect the character of the countryside”. 2221 The policy is too negative as there are few campsites in The Council disagrees that the policy is negative. The policy seeks to Cheshire. France is provided as an example of the benefits of a locate new development proposals for touring and camping sites in line positive approach to camp site provision. Local plan (Part One) policy STRAT1 ‘sustainable development’, policies STRAT2-9 on the settlement strategy and policy ECON3 on the visitor economy. The policy aims to ensure that new development minimises the potential harm to the countryside and landscape, residential amenity or highway safety and is capable of providing appropriate facilities/services to potential site users.

Social (housing policies): Questions 53 to 59

DM12 – Delivering affordable housing Question 53 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 251, 1714, General support for the policy approach No change to policy required 2034, 2271, 2453, 2529, 2614, 2692, 2716 101 Policy should only apply to major applications Threshold for affordable housing requirements is set in the adopted Local Plan (Part One). No change to policy required. 251 Acceptance of possible alternative provision of affordable Comments noted. No change to policy required housing (off-site / financial contributions) is welcomed. 726, 1972 Affordable housing should be provided for rent at affordable This is not a planning policy issue, and is not referenced in the draft rates. policy. No change to policy required 1619, 2034, Policy should be criteria based / provide examples where off- The 2nd and 3rd preference for the provision of affordable housing will be 2675 site provision may be considered acceptable / explanation of considered on a case by case basis where it can be demonstrated that on- when each preference is acceptable site, policy compliant provision is not viable. This should be demonstrated through a publicly available economic viability assessment as set out in the explanatory text. The policy sets out the order of preferences stating that off-site provision is the second choice for delivery, and if this is not achievable, the 3rd preference may be considered. Text has been added to the explanation for clarity. 939, 1060, Need to define the spatial areas Spatial areas are set out in polices STRAT 3 to STRAT 8 of the Local Plan 1656 (Part One) and further defined in the draft Local Plan (Part Two). Text has been added to the explanation to cross reference the relevant polices that define the spatial areas and identified settlements. 1565 Policy should support a range of tenures e.g. 100% home The explanatory text has been reviewed and reference is made to further ownership, and provision by Registered Providers and private guidance being provided through Supplementary Planning Document(s). sector house builders. 1386, 2271 Expand approach to include other mechanisms such as Rent Comments noted. Policy SOC1 seeks to deliver affordable housing in DM12 – Delivering affordable housing Question 53 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to Buy and Starter Homes. perpetuity, and delivery mechanisms that fulfil the criteria would be acceptable. The position on Starter Homes has not yet been clarified through regulations and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and as such the need to for Local Plan policy is not known at this stage. Supporting text will be added to the beginning of the housing section clarify this position. 1386 Viability assessment should not be needed where affordable The explanatory text has been amended to clarify that a publicly available requirement is met. economic viability assessment is required where the proposed affordable housing contribution is not compliant with policy SOC1. 1637 Affordable housing provided through preferences 2 and 3 The policy states that provision under preferences 2 and 3 are located should be conditioned to link specifically to the spatial area. within the same spatial area and will be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement. 2271 Starter Homes should be referenced in the policy to ensure Comments noted. The policy seeks to provide affordable housing consistency with national policy products in line with policy SOC 1. 2675 Off-site provision should not be restricted to being within the The policy seeks to provide affordable housing across the whole of the same spatial area (SHMA does not disaggregate need by borough as there is a general need throughout Cheshire West and spatial area). Chester. Paragraph 7.7 of the Local Plan (Part One) states that “there is clear justification for an affordable housing policy across the borough”.

DM13 – Rural exception sites Question 54 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1715, 1642, General support for the policy approach No change to policy required 2107, 2717 102, 1873 Use of “small” in policy needs to be defined in the context of The Council consider that in relation to small sites definition this will be up the policy / should be deleted to 20 dwellings in a key service centre and up to 10 dwellings in a local service centre. This will be explained in the policy explanation, although size of development must be to meet a specified and current local need DM13 – Rural exception sites Question 54 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response and the development must be acceptable in relation to other matters e.g. harm to countryside or Green Belt, amenity etc. 941, 1061, Policy should read “The need for the development must be 1658 clearly demonstrated through an up to date and robust This is not considered necessary as reference to the Council’s waiting list assessment of local housing needs based on the Council's has been deleted in response to comments from Housing Strategy and most up-to-date housing waiting list, or if existing, take into Development Management. The supporting text has been amended to consideration a local needs survey undertaken by Parish reference groups linked to the Parish Council Councils.” 1566 Proposed amendment to paragraph 2 of policy take account The Council’s SHMA relates to objectively assessed need for the whole of local housing market situation when determining borough and is not suitable to identify a specific local affordable need. applications for rural exception sites – additional bullet point “The Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)” 1873, 1902 Paragraph 10.60 is misleading and not consistent with Where local affordable needs can be met on alternative sites without the paragraph 89 of NPPF which does not impose any such need for exception sites this should be the first option. ( please see sequential test. paragraph 9.60) 1873, 1902, Clarification in respect of requirements for housing needs Reference to the Council’s waiting list has been reviewed and the policy 1903, 2530 information is welcomed. Use of Council’s housing waiting has been amended to ensure that rural exception sites are supported by list is required as not all Parish Councils have up to date robust evidence of local need. surveys. Reference should also be made to SHMA. The Council’s SHMA relates to objectively assessed need for the whole borough and is not suitable to identify a specific local affordable need. 1873, 1902 Recognition of potential to deliver small subsidiary element Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC2 references cross-subsidy and therefore of open market housing on rural exception sites is welcomed does not need to be duplicated in Part Two. but should be included in policy text. 1903 Plan does not specify housing requirements for local service The Local Plan (Part Two) does not allocate rural exception sites although centres, and suggest land adjacent to Higher Wincham Neighbourhood Development Plans may do so subject to their being a boundary to deliver affordable housing to meet local needs. robust identified local need. DM13 impedes opportunity to deliver housing here. 1903 Policy is unsound as results in an unintended impediment It is not necessary to add ‘made’ to Neighbourhood Plan as weight will be where there is no Neighbourhood Plan. given accordingly to a plan at earlier stages of preparation (please note DM13 – Rural exception sites Question 54 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Government changes giving full weight to NPs that have passed referendum stage). The local connection criteria is identified in the policy but it is accepted local communities may wish to vary this through a NP to reflect local planning priorities. it is not necessary to add the additional suggested text (see above) 2092, 2360, Rural exception sites outside of identified key and local Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC2 only enables rural exception sites on the 2589, 2616 service centres should be allowed. National policy no longer edge of key and local service centres in accordance with the strategy for seeks to protect countryside for its own sake, but supports development in the rural area that has been established in the plan. This ‘thriving rural communities’. PPG reinforces this stressing approach has been found sound and consistent with NPPF. The Part Two importance of housing supporting sustainability of villages plan is not an opportunity to re-open the debate on matters discussed and and smaller settlements. established through Part One. 2403 Restrictive settlement boundary for Tarporley and DM13 This policy supports the delivery of affordable housing through rural could further prohibit any new development adjacent to the exception sites that may be justified when meeting a specific and settlement. identifiable local need. 2454 Policy should include clause for allocation of properties on Comments noted. It is fully accepted that rural exception sites are only exception sites to ensure they are primarily available for justified where meeting a specific local need and not a wider need. It is local residents in need. hoped the approach will ensure first occupation is available for residents identified through the needs assessment but the policy and text also now refers to allocation of properties. 2530 Policy should be expanded to allow for some market In line with Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC2 market housing should be provision on rural exception sites where viability shows they subsidiary and only where necessary to make the wide scheme viable. are not deliverable. Unrealistic land values are not accepted as justification for cross-subsidy. 2778 Policy R2 should be amended to widen the definition of Local Service Centres must be identified in line with the adopted strategy Local Service Centres. set put in the Local Plan (Part One). 2841 In order for Welsh Water to comment on the impact of this Comments noted. No change to policy required policy, the location and size of developments sites would be required.

DM14 – Mix and type of new housing Question 55 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 727, 1290, General support for the policy approach No change to policy required 799, 810, 1716, 1994, 2718 103 Policy should only apply to major developments. Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC3 relates to all residential development and contributing to overall needs for affordable housing. Revisions to the policy recognise larger schemes will be able to provide a mix and type 252, 55, 1443, Overly prescriptive approach (“must”) and specific house Overall approach is not considered overly prescriptive. Policy revisions 1874, 1904, types may not be viable or attractive in certain locations. take account of latest need evidence and viability and remove references 2533, 2693 to bungalows. All of the policies will be tested to ensure that they are viable. If issues are identified, the policy will be adapted accordingly. The policy aims to meet the needs for housing within the borough therefore a policy requiring a mix and type of housing, with an emphasis on smaller units, and provision for older persons is necessary. Viability and design considerations have been included in the policy. 829 Policy fails due to lack of effective controls over conflicting Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC 3 seeks balanced and mixed student accommodation developments communities. Policies in the Part Two plan provide further detail on PBSA and HMO accommodation. This policy is mainly directed at ensuring housing developments reflect need in terms of size and type. 942, 1062, Mix and type should be related to an identified demand, or Local need data can be taken into account by the Council. 1659 equivalent financial contribution paid into “affordable housing Policy now references role of Neighbourhood Development Plans as well. pot”. 942, 1062, Category 3 building regulations should be a requirement of The Council cannot insist on the inclusion of new dwellings meeting 1645, 1659, development and not just “encouraged” Category 3 (wheelchair user dwellings) as part of new developments 2272, 2456 except where the Council controls allocation. 1443 Strongly oppose the alternative option as far too prescriptive Comments noted. No change to policy required 1716 House types, sizes and tenures must be distributed across a This would be considered through design policies. development and not clustered 1861, 2272 It is not always appropriate to provide the mix specified. Policy amended to recognise it may not always be appropriate to provide the required mix. DM14 – Mix and type of new housing Question 55 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1861 Reference to building regulations should be removed – policy Government guidance allows optional Building Regulations to be used should not replicate other legislation where identified in the Local Plan. Policy amended to remove reference to specific classes in policy wording but in the explanatory text. 1952 Requirement for bungalows is not addressed through the plan The policy references the need to address the ageing population and in the same way that affordable housing is. bungalows but housing mix will depend on evidence. The policy has been amended and supports Neighbourhood Plans to set out local detailed mix and type policies which may include bungalows where justified. 1994 Additional detail is required on proportion of bungalows Bungalows may be justified as part of the overall mix but will depend on provided to meet needs of elderly to downsize. evidence. Other policies deal with specialist accommodation for older people. 2036, 2272 Policy seeks to deliver too many specific types of housing on Explanation amended to reflect it may not be possible to provide a range any one site of dwellings across all sites. Priorities for provision should be agreed with the Council. 2036 Support the provision of self-build housing but concerned that Self-build needs to be considered as part of residential proposals. no extra detail is provided. Flexibility should be built in to Viability referenced in the policy and whole plan viability undertaken. allow negotiation on basis of viability. 2272, 2533, Not clear what evidence the current approach is based upon Policy amended to refer to latest evidence and approach being agreed 2590, 2617 as SHMA is out of date and therefore approach is contrary to with the Council. The SHMA identified a preference for bungalows from NPPF. some respondents but exact mix will need to reflect most up to date evidence 2382 Housing Authorities now have requirement to consider the The Council would be happy to further discuss this topic once full needs for provision of houseboats and moorings. guidance has been published. 2456 To operate appropriately, housing needs assessments must be Policy requires that the latest housing need information must now be kept up to date taken into account. 2676 Policy is too restrictive and generalist and should be worded Policy recognises not all sites can provide a full range of housing types. to encourage the specified mix and type of dwellings on all Government guidance enables Council’s to use higher building development schemes. Policy should be appropriate in scale regulations standards where justified. and site specific circumstances 2676 Specific references are made to parts of Building Regulations Policy quotes regulations in supporting text the text but accept these can in the policy which are to specific and do not allow for change. Generally developer responses wanted more guidance but less DM14 – Mix and type of new housing Question 55 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response flexibility / changes or updates to the Regulations. prescription which is difficult for a policy to achieve. The Council may publish additional guidance if required.

DM15 – Specialist accommodation Question 56 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 104, 728, 824, General support for the policy approach No change to policy required 944, 1063, 1717, 1648, 1660, 2095 824 It should be recognised that not all elderly people wish to live Policy DM14 supports a mix of house sizes and types to support the wide in care homes, lifetime homes and down sizing should be range of needs for first time home buyers through to older and possible vulnerable person’s accommodation. The policy encourages the provision of life time homes, and adaptable properties to provide further choice. 830 Desired sites have been lost in Chester and provision of The plan does not allocate sites for the provision of specific residential specialist accommodation has failed due to student development however the policies suggested in the preferred approach accommodation developments plan would assist in the delivery of a mix of housing for all sectors of our communities. 1863, 2201, Policy requires greater flexibility. The strategy of the Local Plan is to locate development within identified 2459 Tightly drawn boundaries and lack of allocations mean that sustainable settlements as set out in STRAT 3 to STRAT 6 and additional there is no provision of sites for specialist accommodation. Part Two policies. The Plan does not support the development of such Policy should support proposals within or on the edge of facilities in the countryside where there would a reliance on the car, settlements, and extra care villages within close proximity to restricted or limited access to services and facilities, and the creation of a services and facilities (rural exception schemes) standalone community. The plan supports the creation and enhancement of mixed communities. 2037 Extra care is meeting a specialist need and should not be Comments noted. subject to affordable housing requirements. Affordable housing should be provided in relation to the proportion of self-contained units that are proposed, including self-contained age restricted dwellings. The policy has been reviewed and amended to DM15 – Specialist accommodation Question 56 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response provide clarity in respect of where affordable housing will be sought. Communal establishments such as care and nursing homes will not be expected to provide affordable units. No change to policy required. 2306 Wrexham Road development should provide a mix of housing Comments noted. This policy supports the delivery of mixed housing including bungalows, specialist accommodation and dwellings types. Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 3 sets out the requirements for capable of adaptation. the strategic site at Wrexham Road which includes the preparation of a development brief for the site which could include details such housing mix and type. No change to policy required.

DM16 – Student accommodation Question 57 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 825, 831, Independent needs assessment must be required for any Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). 1997, 2414 planning application for student accommodation. The proposed needs test is weak and inadequate, and the geography for applying the assessment is overly restrictive. 831 Policy SOC3 and draft policy DM16 do not provide any Paragraph 10.78 of the policy explanation sets out the requirements of a management of ‘student life’ within residential communities management plan which includes provision for measures to interact with local communities. In addition, the adopted SPD also provides further guidance. 831 Policy does not recognise potential alternative sites beyond The preferred approach does not propose any land allocations for student the urban area boundary. The site identified in CF2 targets accommodation. Land at Parkgate Road, (the ‘Glenesk’ site) was floodplain identified under policy CH4 to be allocated for educational facilities to be brought forward in the context of a development brief for the site. Please see response to Qu 15 in relation to policy CH4. 831, 2172 The accepted distance for student accommodation The distance proposed in policy DM16 complies with the adopted SPD. It development is overly restrictive and is not proven to be a is not a specific stipulated requirement and the inclusion of the word reasonable travelling distance. Setting a walking distance in ‘approximate’ allows for flexibility when considering proposals. Any new the policy is specific and unnecessary. development should be sustainably located and have good access to DM16 – Student accommodation Question 57 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response sustainable modes of transport. 831 Sustainability of the policy over the lifetime of the plan All of the policies in the preferred approach document have been subject (protecting character and distinctiveness, heritage, residential to Sustainability Appraisal and the findings of this assessment will be used quality of life, encouraging mixed residential development in to inform the development / relevant amendments to the policy. Further the city) is compromised by the restrictions it applies. SA will be carried out as the preparation of the policies progresses to Publication Stage. 873 Better definition of ‘current residential or employment use’ is The policy will be reviewed to provide clarity on existing uses where needed to make clear that the needs test is required only appropriate. when premises are physically occupied. This would not compromise the sustainable redevelopment of vacant premises where student accommodation would be a suitable alternative use.

873, 2147 Object to the principle of a needs test. There is no reasonable Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). justification for a needs test in relation to student accommodation. The needs test is unduly restrictive and contrary to policy SOC3. 873 There is a qualitative as well as quantitative aspect to needs Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). assessments. The policy does not address quality of accommodation and potential for improvement in the stock through new development. 873 Potential to practically provide and update evidence of need is Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). limited to the Council and the University. This would prevent private developers from having the opportunity to meet the policy requirement, and be an unjustified constraint. 873, 2172 Concerned about requirement to demonstrate that there are Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). no appropriate alternative sites – should this refer to preferable alternative sites, as this currently imposes a test that is almost impossible to satisfy. Clarification on what is deemed to be and ‘appropriate alternative site’, and how this DM16 – Student accommodation Question 57 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response is assessed. 873 Policy is unnecessary and would be very difficult to apply, and Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). should be deleted. 1363 Managing student accommodation needs to be much more Policy SOC3, along with an adopted SPD and proposed development ‘plan led’ management policy in the Local Plan (part Two) are designed to provide a plan led approach to dealing with proposals for student accommodation. 2147 Consideration of proposals for student accommodation Thank you for your comments. The policy includes requirements for should be based on sustainability, amenity and technical proposals to be sustainably located, and to provide acceptable living considerations. amenity. 2147 The tone of the policy is unduly negative and suggests existing The tone and content of the policy have been considered, and the policy student accommodation (by definition) causes harm over and has been amended where appropriate. Please see Local Plan Working above other land uses. Group report (26th June 2017) for proposed amendments. 2147 The policy should be significantly reworded to reflect the The policy has been drafted in the context of the Part One policy and criteria established in the SPD. supplementary information set out in the Council’s adopted SPD. 2148 Needs must be demonstrated in terms of: Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017).  Number of student rooms and official University projections; and  Impact student accommodation development will have on other sectors of the community in meeting requirements in STRAT 2 and SOC3 2172 Policy DM16 compliments the adopted Part One policy SOC3 Thank you for your comments. 2172 Clarification is needed on ‘employment commitment’. Does Employment allocation refers to sites identified in the Local Plan for a this mean allocations? specific use / development, and policy DM16aims to safeguard these sites against alternative developments where possible. Planning commitments i.e. sites with a planning permission, that are not identified land allocations are not included in the definition of an allocation. Where necessary, the glossary to the Local Plan will be updated to provide clarity on the meaning of both ‘allocation’ and ‘commitment’. Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). 2172 If there is to be a requirement for a needs assessment, this Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). DM16 – Student accommodation Question 57 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response should be across all sites, rather than just allocated sites. 2172 How is the ‘immediate area’ defined in reference to the Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). cumulative impacts of student accommodation? 2147 Needs test does not acknowledge the positive role that Please see Local Plan Working Group report (26th June 2017). additional specialised student accommodation plays in reducing the need and use by students of HMO’s.

DM17 – Houses in multiple occupation Question 58 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 107, 730, 946, Support policy Comments noted 1065, 1657, 1664, 1719

19 Revocation of permitted development rights in the Westminster Park Article 4 direction requires specific evidence in order to area requested in line with Garden Quarter and Newry Park wards. implement such controls. Article 4 is a separate legal process to Proper controls needed through conditions for certain uses. the Local Plan. 1292 All paragraphs in explanatory text refer to students but policy applies The policy and explanatory text will be reviewed and clarity to all HMO’s. This should be clarified in the policy and the explanation. provided to ensure that policy applies to all HMO’s, and is not subject to only students. 832 Policy does not provide control or enforcement to deal with anti- The level of HMO properties is in line with the recently adopted social behaviour. 15% restriction is below 10% required in other SPD and is a suitable level to maintain well balanced communities conurbations, and is too limited to terraced housing. as well as a variety of housing options / choices for both students and professionals. 832 Policy does not reduce studentification in already affected areas. The purpose of the policy is to manage the level of HMO’s (student and professional dwellings) to ensure that residential areas do not become over populated. The policy does not control the end user of a HMO. Policy SOC 3 of the Local Plan (Part One) supports the provision of purpose built student accommodation DM17 – Houses in multiple occupation Question 58 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response which also aims to reduce the need for HMO’s for students. 2149 To be compatible with SOC3 and HO17 the policy should reflect % of The point made is appreciated but on a practical level it would be dwellers and not dwellings to prevent large HMO’s having very difficult to operate a policy based on population numbers disproportionate effect on existing residents. that are subject to change and difficult to monitor.

DM18 – Residential annexes Question 59 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 947, 1665, Policy supported No change to policy required 2719 108 People should be allowed to build extensions for residential annexes. Policy DM 18 has been deleted as an individual policy and 833 Use of annexes should be monitored to ensure no alternative use such elements have been incorporated in to revised policies DM 21 as student rentals. Development within a residential curtilage, and DM 22 Change of 855 Requirement for S106 legal agreement to control use and occupation use of buildings to residential. conflicts with the NPPF and paragraph 10.85 should be amended to “A The revised policies support the provision of additional subsidiary planning condition or Section 106 Legal Agreement” accommodation in the form of annexes, whilst protecting 1066 Needs to take account of older people living in isolated houses and amenity. allow suitable separate dwellings (granny flats) relative in size to existing building and curtilage. 1720 Must differentiate between DM15 and DM18 1662 Adequate off road parking is essential within existing property.

Social (Gypsy and Travellers): Questions 60 to 61

The summary and consultation response tables for question 60 and question 61 are set out in the Local Plan Working Group report and supporting appendices dated 24th July 2017. http://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1011&MId=5319&Ver=4 Social (Health): Questions 62 to 65

DM20 – Health Impacts of new development Question 62 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2477, 2779, 2558,  Consideration needs to be given to recruitment and  The vision in the Local Plan (Part One) is by 2030 Cheshire 2894, 2273, 2429, employment of health care professionals by ensuring Vale West and Chester will be a desirable and attractive place to 2464, 1870, 1943, Royal is a vibrant, attractive location that people want to live, work, learn and visit with vibrant towns and rural 1370, 1671, 1069, invest, live and work in. villages. This is supported by the strategic policies in the 950, 32  The changing demographic of proposed housing and Local Plan and will also be supported by the Local Plan employment must consider the impact and or the (Part Two). requirement for additional health and care services, estate  The level of housing and employment growth in the and infrastructure. Appropriate resources must be made borough until 2030 has been established within the Local available to deliver this as the current infrastructure will not Plan (Part One). be able to meet the increased demand.  The policy has been amended to reflect the wording in  There will be a changing model of care, with a growing and Planning Practice Guidance that requires a health aging population, the commissioning organisation needs to assessment where there is likely to be a significant impact ensure value for money and ensure the system is fit for the on public health. These include development that is likely future. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the estate / to impact the health challenges faced within Cheshire West development are fit for purpose, can operate flexibly and and Chester and large scale housing, economic or meet modern standards. Access to health care is likely to be hazardous development. extended beyond office hours and could include evening and  The policy has been amended to say all developments weekend access to GPs, care in the community, an should take every opportunity to improve health. If there empowered ambulance services and greater use of were no opportunities to improve health, and the pharmacies. development is acceptable, the development would be  The Vale Royal CCG would like to stress the importance of allowed. ensuring that all development considerations plan for and  The Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC 5 states that any include the additional service capacity required to address development that gives rise to significant adverse impacts population growth and change in their needs. will not be allowed, which includes impacts on air. The  The policy should consider adverse health effects from all Local Plan (Part Two) Preferred Approach contained a manner of and uses including vehicular transport. policy that supports SOC 5 on air quality (DM 23). Development should not be allowed where they exacerbate  The policy has been amended to allow more flexibility, an already identified problem, such as air quality. especially for small house builders and concentrate on DM20 – Health Impacts of new development Question 62 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  The plan should encourage full, free and frank provision of development that will have a significant impact on health environmental data and information along with explanations in line with PPG. or where suitable independent expertise.  The policy has been simplified to make it clear what should  Jones homes agrees that developers have a responsibility to happen when an assessment is required and the outcomes improve health and wellbeing of existing and future if this cannot be achieved. residents. However, the policy is overly onerous on small  Additional benefits of a scheme that can contribute to scale development and places a further burden on heath have been acknowledged in the text of the policy. developers. Jones Homes suggests a health assessment is Although there is a policy that covers recreational route required for development over 100 dwellings. ways is in the Local Plan (Part Two), it has also been added  The policy should be amended to allow development that as it can contribute to the health of a development. maintains and improves health rather than improve. The  The policy is based on the evidence that has come from the policy could prevent an otherwise acceptable development. Councils Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) and  Objection to the inclusion of major residential and economic health and wellbeing strategy. Within the policy text, it developments. PPG sets out that health impact assessment includes considerations of the challenges faced in the can be a useful tool for development that is expected to have borough, including the aging population. a significant impact. It is accepted where significant impact  The plan will be subject to viability testing on all policies are likely, a health assessment may be applicable, such as before the publication version of the Local Plan (Part Two). areas with high deprivation.  The policy has been formulated alongside the health and  For projects needing an Environmental Impact Assessment housing sub-group within the council. Further discussions (EIA), the starting point for consideration of whether a health with public health will continue throughout the plan assessment is required should be the scoping opinion. The process. three bullet points set out in DM 20 are ambiguous and do  Policy STRAT 10 of the Local Plan (Part One) promotes use not set out a clear robust process for identifying health of sustainable transport and requires development to impact. incorporate measures to improve physical accessibility and  In some circumstances, development may generate a remove barriers to mobility. Policy SOC 5 promotes safe demand for health care that cannot be accommodated in and accessible environments and develops good access by existing facilities. However, it should not be for the developer walking, cycling and public transport. to address existing deficiencies and other matters where they are not directly or reasonably related in terms of scale.  Health and wellbeing of residents is an integral part of good DM20 – Health Impacts of new development Question 62 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response place making.  Life expectancy in Cheshire West and Chester is similar to the average for the England and a disparity in healthy life expectancy is only relevant in some areas.  The policy doesn’t acknowledge the increase of affordable and market housing and the significant contribution to reducing health inequalities.  The policy hasn’t acknowledged the adoption of good place making principles, appropriate housing, improved access to local services, healthy transport such as cycling and walking and access to green infrastructure and active recreation.  Welcomed recognition of health impacts of new development, however would like to see the need for improved accessibility to green space and recreational route ways.  The policy should cover all developments specifically marketed to older residents.  Research has shown and is included in the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy that for older age groups the design, layout, inclusivity and outdoor space of dwellings has a great impact on health, both physical and mental.  Viability consideration should be taken into account of when the need for new health infrastructure is being considered, as should the ability of the Health Authority to plan and budget for a growth in demand. It has been asked through the consultation of the councils draft CIL Regulation 123 List, to include health infrastructure.  The policy is inconsistent with national policy. The Local Plan should be aspirational but realistic. The Local Planning Authority should work with public health leads on DM20 – Health Impacts of new development Question 62 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response formulating the policy and this is not clear if this has taken place. The policy would be improved if it was specified what the needs are across the plan area  Would like to see the policy extend to all development  New development should require adequate provision of footpaths to connect the scheme to the existing environment. All footways must be 3m in width to accommodate all forms of sustainable travel. 1921, 655, 111 Hot food takeaways Hot food takeaways • The policy is not positively prepared, is unjustified and lacks • Policy has been amended to be positively prepared, ensuring evidence. that every opportunity is taken to improve health • There is no conclusive evidence linking hot food takeaways • Reference to hot food takeaways in 400m of schools has and obesity. been removed from the policy. It is considered that the • Unhealthy food is often purchased from other uses such as policy itself will consider the impact of hot food take away shops and cafes. on health and where adverse impacts or there is a failure to • No consideration for operators that have made their menu take reasonable opportunities to improve health, and healthier application can be refused. • Is a 400m walk a different length to any other form of • It is explained that hot food takeaways can have an impact development on health and there needs to be considerations for retail • Impacts on residential amenity, would health impacts need policy in relation to A5 uses. to be measured and how will this be policed • Clearer links in the text to the Local Evidence in the JSNA and • No assessment has been made of the number or Health and Wellbeing Strategy has been created. concentration of hot food takeaways  Clearer relationship between the health and retail policies • Could use retail evidence to limit the total concentration for have been amended in both policies retail health purposes

DM21 – Noise Question 63 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2755, 2721,  Support for noise limits and standards, however policy is poorly  Policy has been reworded to make it clear and easier to read 2559, 2497, written.  The 5dB below existing background noise levels (L90) will 1881, 1790,  Developers will challenge keeping industrial and commercial apply to industrial and commercial uses, oil and gas 1647, 1999, noise at least 5dB below existing background noise (L90), this developments and energy generation schemes that are 1412, 269, 257, will be impossible to achieve applying for planning permission, with the potential to raise 112, 16  The World Health Organisation has identified sleep disturbance background noise levels at nearby residential properties. as a major health hazard. Noise levels should apply to all  The policy requires new residential development to be below development during the night and particularly construction and 30dB LAeq, 8hrs within bedrooms and individual noise events minerals should not exceed 45dB LA during the night. The policy has  The policy doesn’t mention noise from other development that been amended to include fixed times and days for isn’t industrial or commercial construction, and the scope has been made clear that it  Clarification is required on the stated 1 dB increase, which noise includes oil and gas development and other energy index does it apply to and is it all forms of development? generation schemes. Minerals extraction is covered in Part  Every development will need a noise survey Two Policy DM 57 Proposals for minerals working.  Construction noise has not been considered and further  The policy is concerned with the impact on residential restrictions on the times and days of the week. amenity and other noise sensitive uses from new  M56 motorway remains a significant nuisance in Frodsham and developments; the noise from commercial and industrial is further mitigation is require d likely to have the most impact over a sustained period of  No consideration for ecological receptors, check HRA for time, whereas other uses will include short term noise. pathways and avoidance Internal and external noise levels will be considered for new  Time restrictions should apply to all development including residential uses. However, the policy wording has been construction and minerals development. amended to include oil and gas development and other  Policy is not appropriate for minerals development that has a energy generation schemes. clear approach set out to noise in the NPPF. The policy should  Reference to 1db has been removed makes clear which index either state it is not applicable to mineral development or add the noise should be measured and the expected noise level. additional criteria for mineral development. The policy covers industrial and commercial uses, oil and gas  DM 21 needs to explicitly state that noise impact assessment developments and energy generation schemes. standards should apply to onshore oil and gas extraction (all  The policy has been amended to clarify that industrial and phases). commercial uses include oil and gas development and energy generation schemes. Minerals development will be expected DM21 – Noise Question 63 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  No mention is made for the impacts of noise as they relate to to meet the criteria of development in close proximity to windfarms. There is emerging evidence around infrasound / low residential properties. frequency noise (<20Hz) and its negative impacts on health.  The policy has been amended to include industrial, commercial, oil and gas and energy generation and the impacts on noise sensitive uses. New residential development will need to meet the expected internal and external noise levels as stated in the policy.  It will be a requirement for all applications that either impact residential amenity due to its proximity or development of residential units will need to comply with the policy.  The policy has been amended to so that construction and demolition noise is restricted to times of day and days of the week to protect residential amenity. The scope of the policy has been made clear that it includes oil and gas development and energy generation schemes and includes minerals working near residential.  The policy applies to new developments and cannot address existing issues. However, additional development, including any in Frodsham), would need to comply with the requirements of the policy.  The draft HRA concluded that the policy provide positive measures as noise levels would not significantly increase, minimising the potential of disturbance of bird species.

DM22 – Land contamination and instability Question 64 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 113, 763, 952,  Agreed but will require additional information requested  The location of housing and other development in areas of 1071, 1257,  There is no mention of flooding. Housing development should not flood risk is covered by other policies in the Local Plan. 1680, 2190, be allowed on flood plains or marsh land. This land forms a Additional text has been added to the explanation to 2383, 1728, valuable barrier in the event of major rainfall. Land in these provide a link to Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV 1which 2592 inappropriate areas could be avoided. directs development away from areas at highest risk  A policy should identify and require restoration of known flooding and Part Two policies DM 31 and DM 35 which contaminated land. Such land should be restored by the land gives priority to the development of sites with the lowest owner to an acceptable condition or by the public through risk of flooding and to reduce flood risk through site layout, compulsory purchase. design and phasing.  The Coal Authority supports the approach that acknowledges the  The purpose the policy is to guide the assessment of potential risk from past coal mining and requires a ground planning applications on land that is known or suspected to assessment be contaminated. It supports Local Plan Part One policy  General support from the Canals and Rivers Trust, however, the STRAT 1, which encourages the reuse of previously policy focuses on below ground instability and requests developed land, but the requirement for identification and recognition is also given to above ground instability issues. restoration of contaminated land is outside the scope of the Construction work in close proximity to waterways has the Local Plan, and would form part of other Council potential to impact the structural integrity of the canal, cuttings programmes and those run by other organisations, such the or embankments. Environment Agency.  The Environment Agency recommend to require a phase 1  It is noted that the Coal Authority is in support of the policy desktop study as a minimum and no changes have been made to this part of the policy.  The support is noted from the Canals and Rivers Trust and amendments have been made to the policy to reflect development causing land instability issues to the site and surrounding areas.  The additional wording recommended by the Environment Agency has been included in the explanatory text.

DM 23 – Air quality ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2722 Agree with policy approach. No change necessary. 114 There is no specific question for DM23. Comment noted. 1370 The policy framework should consider adverse health effects Protection of human health and the environment, in terms of pollution, from all manner of land uses including vehicular transport and emissions and emergency preparedness – are dealt with by the Health and should constrain any further development which would Safety Executive and Environment Agency. The Local Plan cannot duplicate exacerbate already identified problems. Plan policies should the controls of other statutory bodies. The policy has been amended to also encourage full, free and frank provision of environmental require an air quality assessment to be submitted for major developments or data and information - and as needs be for the local where they are likely to harm worsen existing air quality problems or community to be supported in understanding the data and its introduce more people to exiting pollution. The explanation sets out implications through the provision of information and requirements for what needs to be included in the assessment. The planning potentially independent expertise. application process provides an opportunity for interested parties and local people to submit comments and demonstrate whether they support the proposal. The Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the requirements for consultation with local communities. The SCI also encourages developers involved in ‘significant’ planning applications to carry out independent public consultations prior to the submission of schemes, providing the community with an early opportunity to become involved in proposals for their area. This could take the form of public exhibitions, meetings workshops or media coverage etc. Results from any public consultation exercise undertaken by the applicant should form part of the application. 1432 Environmental protection in CW&CC is negligible and is too The Council is preparing a separate ‘Low Emissions Strategy’ that seeks to confined to what the Council considers to be statutory target the reduction of pollutants and which identifies measures and actions nuisances. If something is not permanent, then it is not a to improve air quality across the borough. statutory nuisance. For example, the air pollution incident on the Wrexham Road (August 2016). The Council must have a major rethink on this topic. 1454 There was no provision for comment on this topic. Three sites Comment noted. While the policy explanation refers to designated Air Quality mentioned where emissions from traffic are monitored but Management Areas, it also highlights that the Council has a statutory duty to there is a need for monitoring to be done on a wider scale in assess air pollution across the whole borough, which is carried out by the particular near the Ince recycling plant. Council’s Environmental Protection team. DM 23 – Air quality ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1890 As well as monitoring air quality - an active management plan The Council is preparing a separate ‘Low Emissions Strategy’ that seeks to needs to be put in place to try and reduce the air target the reduction of pollutants and which identifies measures and actions contamination. Also the policy doesn't include odour control to improve air quality across the borough. The policy has been amended to which has been a real issue in the city and around Sealand. ensure that new development that is likely to create an odour must ensure that there is no harm to the residential amenity in the area. Appropriate mitigation measures may be required and planning conditions used to protect the amenity of the residents. 1999 In relation to onshore oil and gas, amend policy to state that Policy M 4 relating to proposals for the exploration, appraisal or production of development will only be allowed where it can be hydrocarbons has been amended to refer to the control and minimisation of demonstrated that greenhouse gases associated with fugitive gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive emissions and emissions will not lead to unacceptable adverse greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be responsible for environmental impacts. monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. 2562 The first bullet point makes reference to a measurable The policy has been amended to focus more on the impact on air quality from increase in NO2 and PM10 levels. However, this is ambiguous new development, and this reference has been removed from the policy. The as it is not defined what constitutes a measurable increase. explanation provides clarification on how the policy will be applied. Further clarification is sought. 2684 No mention is made of PM2 which are likely arising from Comment noted. While the policy explanation refers to designated Air Quality waste incineration and energy from waste plants. Developers Management Areas, it also highlights that the Council has a statutory duty to must be required to contribute to contribute to active assess air pollution from all sources across the whole borough, which is carried monitoring in areas of identified air quality concern or those out by the Council’s Environmental Protection team. The policy explanation areas subject to the cumulative impacts of new development. has been amended to include the identification of monitoring measures as an expected output from an Air Quality Assessment. 2756 Key issue for Frodsham – needs more mitigation. Comment noted. The policy explanation refers to designated Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), including Fluin Lane in Frodsham and the Council is currently in the process of preparing an action plan for this AQMA.

DM 24 Culture and public art Question 65 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 478 Support for the policy, which reflects advice in paragraph 70, however, Performing arts has been added to the criteria. there needs to be reference to performing arts (theatre, dance, concerts, Policy has now been combined with community facilities and music, etc). many of the criteria for loss of the facility applied to cultural Suggested policy wording to add additional criteria to strengthen the policy buildings. The criterion relating to replacement facilities now includes reference to the catchment of the existing facility. 1550 The policy should state that demolition or change of use should only be The policy has been combined with community facilities and considered when the users of the building are satisfied with the the policy references compensatory facilities of equivalent alternatives being offered community benefit. 1875 Jones Homes considers the requirement for all major developments to The policy has been amended to encourage contributions provide locally distinctive public art that is integrated into town centres towards town centre and key sites public art. Therefore, and key sites should be deleted as it is not consistent with the CIL allowing flexibility during the application process. regulations. Jones Homes considers that this should only be a requirement of key regeneration schemes or sites of major significance. 2430 The Trust would like to see the Local Plan include recognition of the value The policy has been amended to include public art in of appropriately sited public art in the countryside, both permanent and appropriate locations in the rural area. temporary installations. At the moment, policy DM24 does not appear to cover this. 2678 Requiring public art as part of major development does not align with the The policy has been amended to encourage contributions planning practice guidance that says planning obligations should be used towards town centre and key sites public art. Therefore, to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The policy should allowing flexibility during the application process. be reworded so it is clear that where appropriate, the Council will discuss with applicants the prospects of public art being provided as part of new development. 2780 The Rural Growth Board recognises the importance of public art that is The policy has been amended to include public art in appropriately sited within countryside settings. Policy DM24 currently does appropriate locations in the rural area. not appear to cover this.

Social (Open space): Questions 66 to 71

DM25 – Open space provision in new development Question 66 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2534, 2723, Broad support for the policy and its approach. Support for the policy is noted. 1830, 1734, Support for the flexibility provided in the policy that the 2042 Council will consider off site provision where on-site provision is not appropriate. 884 The policy should explicitly protect existing open space and Policy SOC6 of Local Plan (Part One) establishes the strategic approach to children’s play areas, and show on the policies map where open space, sport and recreational facilities, seeking to protect, manage it applies. and enhance existing provision. Draft policies DM35 and DM36 of the Local Plan (Part Two) are in line with, and provide further guidance to policy SOC6. This policy reiterates that open space that provides opportunities for sport and recreation are designated under policy SOC 6. Sites identified under SOC6 will be identified on the policies map. This will serve to reinforce the protection to existing open space, sport and recreational facilities established in policy SOC6 of Local Plan (Part One). 1688, 1073, 954 Off-site provision or enhancements to existing open space Requirements for open space provision in new development are based on should be secured through a legal section 106 agreement the additional demand it will place on existing provision and as such the tied to the immediate area i.e. Parish or Ward, and not a requirements will be directly related to the development. Where on-site “central pot”. provision is demonstrated not to be practical, the policy allows for off-site provision which will generally be dealt with through the planning application process and secured through S106 agreements. The policy prioritises off-site provision or enhancements to existing open space in the locality of the development (defined by the access standards provided in the Open Space Study), then by ward or parish or a neighbouring ward or parish, which will contribute to ensuring that benefits are felt locally. 2274 There is no justification for setting an overarching quantity The quantity standards included within the policy are transposed from the standard for allotments due to the demand led nature of Open Space Study (OSS). The OSS includes a local needs assessment which this typology of open space. provides a snapshot of key issues and priorities based on consultation with the community and other stakeholders. Many stakeholders highlighted a need for additional allotment plots/sites, and indicated that they would not DM25 – Open space provision in new development Question 66 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response expect to travel more than 10 minutes to access allotments. The proposed minimum standard of 0.15 ha/1000 for analysing existing provision and for new provision reflects the results of the needs assessment and current propensity for higher density housing with smaller gardens, and potential increased demand for allotments. As such the demand-led nature of allotments has been considered in setting the minimum standards for assessing existing and new provision of allotments. The policy has been amended to clarify the requirements on developers and the factors that the Council will consider in determining an appropriate amount and type of new provision (or contribution). Application of the quality, quantity and accessibility standards (as set in the OSS) will enable assessment of current supply of allotments to determine the requirement for new provision. 2274 Policy needs to define and set out the exact requirements The Open Space Study (OSS) refers to the Fields in Trust Guidance for for play space, including surrounding playable space; and Outdoor Sport and Play, Beyond the Six Acre Standard which sets out should split the access standard for play space for youths guidance on buffer zones around play space. The revised policy explanation depending on the type of provision. clarifies that surrounding playable space will need to be provided in Should provide a definition of play space for children and addition to the quantity standard, in line the guidance. play space for youths in the policy. The OSS should be read in conjunction with the Council’s emerging Play Strategy which provides further detailed guidance on the standards for play space. The policy explanation has been amended to draw together these evidence base documents. The OSS takes the approach that play space should not be restricted to designated ‘reservations’ as children and young people will play and ‘hang out’ in almost all publically accessible space. As such, youth play space is treated with regards to informal recreation opportunities which might include facilities like skate parks, basketball courts, MUGAs etc., rather than limiting the definition of youth play space to these facilities. Therefore, no change is proposed in relation to splitting standards for youth play space depending on the type of provision. DM25 – Open space provision in new development Question 66 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Definitions of youth play space and children’s play space are provided within the OSS (section 5.1.4). The policy text signposts to the OSS which is considered sufficient to provide further clarity on the definitions of each typology. 2468 In key and local service centres, on‐site provision of play The Open Space Study (OSS) identifies that 50 dwellings is the minimum space, particularly for children, should be sought for scale of development that would generate a need for on-site provision and developments of less than 50 dwellings. that the minimum site size for play space (children) is 57.5sqm. If the threshold was lowered to require on-site provision for developments of less than 50 dwellings then the resultant child’s play space would be below the size threshold of what is considered to be useable and functional. The Cheshire West and Chester’s draft Play Strategy recognises that while quantity and access thresholds within spatial planning standards work well for cities, towns and larger villages, small rural parishes often need a different approach as many do not have the required population for the application of the standards to meet children and young people's need for local play space. This is taken into account in the rural locality framework of CWAC’s Play Strategy which suggests a reasonable level of play provision for smaller parishes to aim for, appropriate to population size (but still consistent and complementary to the standards set out in the OSS). This approach is a strategic means of identifying how provision could be prioritised and not a spatial standard for provision. The OSS draws links to the Play Strategy to highlight how they can and should be used in conjunction, and the policy text has been amended to draw together these evidence base documents. 2478, 2757 Clarify that new development is not expected to make The approach set out in the policy is that development will be required to good existing deficiencies in open space in the locality of a provide open space where it will generate additional needs that can’t be development site rather that the development itself should met by existing open space within the locality of development. Such meet its own needs / requirements. assessment is based on the information and standards provided in the There is a shortage of open space in Frodsham so would Open Space Strategy (OSS). want to see a requirement for more play space & The OSS sets out the quantity, quality and access to existing supply of open DM25 – Open space provision in new development Question 66 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response recreational space. space in each study area which will inform the amount and type of open space provision that is required in new development. The policy has been amended to make clear that new provision (or contribution) is required unless it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient existing provision (in terms of quantity, quality and access) and that the development proposal would not result in deficiencies. In Frodsham, the OSS identifies that there is an overall undersupply of all typologies of open space except for park and recreation grounds. Requirements for open space provision in new development are based on the additional demand it will place on existing provision and as such the requirements will be directly related to the proposed development. The policy requires assessment against information on local provision and need, as set out in the OSS (in terms of quantity, quality and access), to determine an appropriate amount and type of provision in new development. The approach to open space requirements in the policy ensures that open space contributions will be related to the development and not as a means to address wider deficiencies across the borough. 2534 Off-site provision should also be allowed where an Neighbourhood plans, once made, form part of the statutory development agreement has been reached with the local community to plan for the borough and so policies related to open space will be taken provide/improve open space in line with a Neighbourhood into account as part of the planning application process. The policy Plan or local aspirations. approach is considered suitably flexible as the Council will consider off site provision where on-site provision is not practical. 2042 Thresholds of development requiring on-site provision and Agree. The policy has been amended to provide the quantity standards, quantity standards should be in the policy itself rather than access standards and scales of housing development that generate a need supporting text. for on-site provision within the policy itself. 2236 An approach to the developer contributions process could Policy DM36 Provision of Sport and Recreation has been amended to be adopted to look at how indoor sports facilities should include an approach to enhancing and providing indoor sports facilities and be enhanced or provided based on any adopted or other non-pitch outdoor sports, in line with the findings of the emerging emerging Sports Facilities Strategy. Sport Facilities Strategy. DM25 – Open space provision in new development Question 66 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2327 Objection to site in the Mere’s Edge area Helsby, being The open space audit within the Open Space Study (2016-2030) will form identified for designation under SOC6. the basis of identifying sites under policy SOC 6 on the Local Plan policies map. Given the nature of this type of audit, it provides a snap-shot of open space assets at a point in time and does not take into account the planning history or possible future changes at specific sites.

DM26 – Provision for sport and recreation Question 67 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2096, 2724, Broad support for the policy and its approach. Support for this policy is noted. 1735, 2475, 1693, 1074, 955, 116 2096 Amend policy to designate sites for sport and recreation in the The strategic approach to open space, sport and recreation is set out rural areas to meet the local community needs. in SOC6 of Local Plan (Part One) which places focus on protecting and improving existing open space. Policy SOC 6 states that development will be required to incorporate or contribute to provision of an appropriate level of provision; it does not require that new sites for sport and recreation are designated through Local Plan (Part Two), rather that Local Plan (Part Two) will provide further guidance on the factors to be considered when provision is provided with new development. This is supported by the Playing Pitch Strategy which states that for most sports the future demand for provision in the borough can be overcome through maximising use of existing pitches through a combination of improving pitch quality, re-designating pitches where there is an oversupply, securing community uses at school sites and working with providers to DM26 – Provision for sport and recreation Question 67 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response increase usage. For pitches that are considered likely to require new provision now or in the future, it is considered that this can be adequately addressed through new provision and/or contributions with new development. It is considered that this policy provides adequate guidance to steer decisions relating to the provision of sport and recreation facilities, in line with the recommendations of the evidence base. 2228 Provide guidance on how lapsed or disused sites will be dealt The policy has been amended to include guidance on how lapsed with. and disused sites will be dealt with. It requires that proposals that would result in loss of a lapsed or disused pitch meet the tests set in Local Plan policy SOC 6. This will ensure that lapsed or disused sites are only disposed of when equivalent of better provision is provided, and an assessment has clearly demonstrated that it is surplus to need and cannot satisfy other unsatisfied open space, sport or recreation needs. The policy explanation states that proposals which affect new or existing open space, sport and recreational facilities will be dealt with on a site by site basis, however, the amended policy now provides overarching guidance in relation to lapsed and disused sites. 2228, 1892, 2475 Provide guidance on how contributions for playing pitches and Policy DM36 has been amended to provide guidance on how other recreational spaces will be sought. developer contributions for pitch provision will be calculated and assessed, informed by the Playing Pitch Strategy and Sport England’s Suggest that support for playing pitches and other recreational Strategic Planning tools. In most cases, developer contributions will spaces could be eligible for S106 contributions, where be sought to increase the capacity of existing provision. The policy appropriate. This could be the case in rural areas where private has been amended to reflect this and provide further guidance in pitches exist but suffer from a lack of local resources to terms of how developer contributions might be used to improve maintain them. existing stock. 2228 Expand consideration of potential impacts on residential Development of sport and recreation facilities will be required to amenity protect residential amenity in line with Local Plan policy SOC 5 and DM2 - Impact on residential amenity. The explanation to this policy DM26 – Provision for sport and recreation Question 67 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response has been amended to expand consideration of potential impacts on residential amenity, in line with Sport England guidance. This includes careful consideration of siting and design of playing pitches, sport and recreation facilities to minimise potential impacts on residential amenity. Part2PA_2228 Provide greater clarity in relation to the requirement for The Council has been in contact with Sport England in revising the providing for the laying and renewal of grass and artificial policy. In line with the further guidance received, the Council has pitches amended the policy to clarify requirements for providing for the laying and renewal of grass and artificial pitches. 2228 Wording amendments required to address wording errors and The policy has been amended, taking into account the suggested ensure conformity with the Playing Pitch Strategy, as follows: wording alterations. Where specific reference is made to the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS), reference to ‘the most up to date evidence - Policy - The most an up-to-date evidence base base’ has been amended in line with the recommendation. However, - Paragraph 10.138 - The Cheshire West and Chester Playing the emerging Sport Facilities Strategy which also forms part of the Pitch Assessment 2015 sets out the provision of recreational evidence base for this policy is not committed to annual reviews like pitches across the borough, identifying specific needs, the PPS, and so the current wording has been retained in instances deficits and surpluses spare capacity present of sports and where the policy refers to the evidence base as a whole. The recreational facilities. These deficits and surpluses and spare emerging Sports Facilities Strategy includes a recommendation for capacity are assessed as both qualitative and quantitative. monitoring and reviewing the strategy which will ensure that the - Paragraph 10.139 Add Lacrosse and Gaelic Football evidence base is kept ‘up to date’ in line with NPPF paragraph 73. - Paragraph 10.143 …the access and use of these facilities should be fully maximised for community use, where feasible. 1220 Objection to designation of 18 Old Stack Yard Barrow under The open space audit within the Open Space Study (2016-2030) policy SOC 6. (OSS) will form the basis for identifying sites under SOC6 on the Local Plan policies map. Every effort was made in the open space audit to exclude sites which have no access. This will form the basis for identifying and protecting sites which offer opportunities for sport or recreation under policy SOC 6. However, the Council also seeks to protect the value of non-designated open spaces which may have DM26 – Provision for sport and recreation Question 67 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response restricted access or are too small to provide real recreation function but nonetheless are valuable components of the green infrastructure network, providing a range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities.

DM27 – Recreational routeways Question 68 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2725, 2781, General support for the policy. Support for the policy is noted. 1833, 1737, 2431, 2384, 1697, 1075, 956, 117 1141 In relation to canals and waterways the Chester Canal Policy CH5 –Chester Conservation Areas in the Local Plan Conservation Area, if adopted, should form an element to (Part Two) makes specific reference to the Conservation Areas consider in developments relevant to the policy. which protect the river and canal corridors in Chester and requires that development in these areas make a positive contribution to the area in accordance with any relevant conservation area appraisals. The policy explanation explicitly refers to the designation of the Chester Canal Conservation Area. It is, therefore, considered to be sufficiently covered within the Local Plan to ensure that consideration is given in relation to development affecting canals and waterways.

1371 The policy should be expanded to cater for aspirational The policy has been amended to offer support for new routes expansion of such recreational routes through the plan and improvements to the existing network, where appropriate. period - and seek to identify and safeguard the Accompanying text has been added into the explanation which opportunities to expand and enhance the provision. E.g. lists examples of specific routes and schemes that could be DM27 – Recreational routeways Question 68 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response extension of cycle routes along the entire length of the pursued if the opportunity arose. The list of examples includes Weaver / Weaver Navigation, the provision of mooring the aspirations suggested in the representation, except for points close to Frodsham, the provision of a sustainable provision of mooring points close to Frodsham which would be cycle routes across Frodsham marshes and from dependent on meeting the criteria set out in Local Plan (Part Frodsham to Delamere Forest. Two) policy DM 38 – Waterways and Mooring Facilities, and any further guidance from the Canals and River Trust. 2237 This policy is generally supported because it reflects the The support for the policy is noted. The policy deals with the aims of Sport England’s new Strategy – Towards an Active relationship between recreational routeways and development, Nation. However, it is felt this policy could go further to rather than principles of the development itself. However, policy ensure all new developments include Active Design DM 29 Health impacts of new developments deals specifically principles that not only link recreation routes and places with the health impacts of new development and considers how used for recreation but provide opportunities to be active development can contribute towards healthy communities. DM within developments themselves. These principles can be 29 has been amended to include consideration of Sport found in Sport England’s Active Design guidance which England’s Active Design Principles. has been produced in partnership with Public Health England. 2781, 2431 The Sandstone Trail is one of the north-west’s most The policy has been amended to identify the Sandstone Trail popular mid-distance recreational routes and needs to be as a strategic recreational routeway. added to the list of recreational routeways that this policy is intended to protect, enhance and extend from adjacent development. 2481 Given current developers and landowners pressures to Promotion of cycle paths is already included within Local Plan maximise density on all developments at the cost of (Part One) policy STRAT 10 which encourages development amenities, it is important that such consideration for cycle proposals to incorporate high quality facilities for pedestrians, paths be enforced with a separate policy. cyclists and public transport. It is considered appropriate to include the cycle network within this policy which considers and This policy could be further strengthened by mentioning provides further detailed guidance in relation to the network of ‘off‐road cycle paths’ and suggesting that improving recreational routeways, which includes cycle routes. existing rights‐of‐way include their upgrade for use by The policy explanation has been amended to include reference cycles and pushchairs if at all practical. to the Council’s emerging Sports Facilities Strategy which identifies a need to provide new and improved walking, jogging and cycling routes and promotes development of safe traffic- DM27 – Recreational routeways Question 68 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response tree cycle facilities. The policy explanation encourages that such findings from the evidence base be used to inform improvements to the recreational routes network where opportunities arise. Further, the explanation has been amended to expand how the existing network might be improved, including upgrades to facilitate shared use and accommodate the needs of different users. 2222 Selected recreational pathways should additionally aim to The policy explanation has been amended to emphasise that provide the basis for coherent medium and long distance recreational routeways should facilitate shared use and the routes and networks across the borough and across its needs of different users. boundaries into its neighbours, for different types of user. The explanation has also been amended to explicitly mention medium and long distance routes which cross administrative boundaries in relation to promoting the improvement to quality, accessibility and connectivity of the recreational routeways network.

Policy DM28 – Tourism and recreation use at restored minerals sites Question 69 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 2098, 2238, General support for the policy approach to allow for The Council welcomes the support for the draft policy. 1834, 1738, appropriate recreational facilities at restored mineral sites. 1708, 957, 118 1407 Strong objection from landowners as the draft policy does The Council notes the comments. Since the consultation on the Local Plan not include provision for holiday accommodation, as such, (Part Two) preferred approach, planning permission has been granted at does not present a viable planning framework to allow the Fourways Quarry, Chester Road Oakmere (15/01803/FUL) with conditions site to be developed for tourism purposes. for “Siting of 143 holiday lodges and a new sailing facility, together with Fourways Quarry site (DM28) has been retained in terms of soft landscaping”. The planning permission is subject to conditions site area. The Fourways Quarry site has benefitted from a including a phasing plan (including provision of the shower /changing long-standing tourism designation associated with the room facilities before the start of water sports facility), ecology, main central lake. To support the future use of the site the highways, landscaping, contamination, and a community use agreement Policy DM28 – Tourism and recreation use at restored minerals sites Question 69 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response tourism designation has always allowed for an associated for public access. It is not considered necessary to retain the allocation as holiday lodge development in and around the lake and this the site can be developed in accordance with the planning permission for has been carried forward through the various the site. Development Plan processes; most recently via policies General policies are included within the Local Plan to cover future RT19 and MW3. development proposals, including Local Plan (Part One) STRAT9, ECON3 The current draft policy DM28 is therefore flawed as it and Local Plan (Part Two) policies omits the requirement to provide holiday accommodation (lodges) as part of the future tourism use of the Fourways Quarry site. Accordingly, it is requested that policy DM28 is redrafted to include a provision for holiday accommodation to support the tourism after use of the Fourways Quarry site. 2098 The draft policy restricts engine powered water sports and The Council notes the comments. The draft policy would need to be read nature conservation activities on such sites. We object to alongside the other relevant policies in the Local Plan, including Local plan this aspect of the policy. There will be a difference (Part Two) DM22 Land contamination and Stability. It is noted that the between the geology of each site which has been subject Draft policy on Fourways Quarry is proposed for deletion as the site now to mineral extraction, as a result the above land will react benefits from planning permission and can be developed in accordance differently, this policy should allow for a development to with the permission for the site. demonstrate the stability of the land and if so engine powered water based activities should in turn be acceptable. 2223 Off line moorings in marinas and otherwise, particularly The Council notes the comments. The Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM29 those on a small or moderate scale, should be supported, relates to waterways and mooring facilities. It is noted that the Draft along with appropriate unassertive development serving policy on Fourways Quarry is proposed for deletion as the site now them. benefits from planning permission and can be developed in accordance with the permission for the site.

Policy DM29 – Waterways and mooring facilities Question 70 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response 2726, 2100, General support for the policy. The Council welcomes the support for the policy. 1899, 1838, The enhanced use of the waterways provides a valuable 1741, 1142, opportunity to raise the profile of the superb natural resources 1076, 119, 2385 available to residents and visitors. 1142, 2385 The statement 'Additional mooring facilities will only be The Council notes the comments. The policy wording has been permitted where the proposals are for the extension of linear or amended to clarify the approach towards new mooring facilities. The lay-by mooring facilities at existing locations, where pressure explanation clarifies that further development relates to new linear from boat numbers is clearly demonstrated and the development or layby mooring facilities, new marina developments, or extensions would not result in the obstruction of the waterway for other to existing facilities. users.' is unclear. The policy does not explicitly refer to marinas as an element in The policy includes criteria for relating to the development of new waterways and mooring facilities although the reference to mooring facilities and this recognises that proposals for new mooring 'hotel, restaurant etc' could be relevant to the pressure for facilities should not result in the degradation of the canal marina provision. environment and would not result in the obstruction of the The reference to 'extension of linear or lay-by mooring facilities waterway. at existing locations' appears to accept the principle that extension of existing linear mooring moorings (such as Golden The policy wording is amended to ensure that proposals for the Nook or Stoak) would be acceptable. CCHT (and CRT) would extension of mooring facilities at existing locations will be considered strongly oppose this since the existence of such linear moorings in relation to the potential cumulative impacts arising from further already substantially degrades the canal environment and poses development. obstruction problems for other users. 1838 Reword to include a focus on existing waterways. CWAC is The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the characterised by an extensive river network and there is huge Local Plan, including DM37 Recreational Routeways, which will be scope for sustainable travel options. An example is the River defined on the policies map. Weaver between Frodsham and Northwich which could be The policy will be amended to cross reference to DM37 Recreational enhanced to open up opportunities for walking and cycling, routeways as defined on the policies map. connecting two key service centres and employment zones 2100 Object as the policy will only support extensions to linear or lay- The Council notes the comments. The policy wording has been by mooring facilities at existing locations. Contrary to NPPF and amended to clarify the approach towards new mooring facilities. The ECON3. The policy must allow for new mooring facilities to explanation clarifies that further development relates to new linear Policy DM29 – Waterways and mooring facilities Question 70 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response enhance the use of the waterways, thus enhancing the tourism or layby mooring facilities, new marina developments, or extensions offer. to existing facilities. Additional wording suggested: “Additional mooring facilities will The policy should be read alongside NPPF and other policies in the be permitted which would not result in the obstruction of the Local Plan (Part One) and Part Two) where appropriate. waterways for other users.” 2100 Second part of the policy again classifies development in the The Council notes the comments and will amend the policy wording countryside with development in the Green Belt - object. to provide clarification of the approach to apply in the green belt. Suggested text for amendments “Proposals for mooring facilities in the Green Belt which include built development which is not considered to be necessary (such as a hotel, restaurant etc) will not be permitted” 2385 The first part of Policy DM29 sets out a number of criteria against The Council notes the comments and welcomes the general support which development affecting the Boroughs waterways will be for the first part of the policy. assessed. The Canal and River Trust is generally supportive of The explanation to the policy will be amended to reference to TCPA such an approach and Appendix 2 of the TCPA Policy Advice Note: Policy Advice Note on Inland Waterways. The policy will be amended Inland Waterways (copy provided) sets out a number of key to include: considerations for safeguarding inland waterways from  Safeguard the structural and operational integrity of the inappropriate development which you may wish to consider. waterways Additional considerations to those already listed include:  Encourage and support public access to and recreational use of safeguarding the structural and operational integrity of the waterways (in line with policy DM37 on recreational routeways) waterways, encourage and supporting public access to and In relation to “Protecting and enhancing the historic environment of recreational use of waterways, and protecting and enhancing the the canal corridor”, the policy has been amended to refer to local historic environment of the canal corridor and associated landscape character and historic assets and refer to other relevant infrastructure and buildings. policies in the Local Plan. The Trust would also wish to see positive reference to the wider The following additional considerations would be covered through opportunities presented by development adjacent to waterway other relevant policies in the Local Plan: within the policy or supporting text, such as opportunities to  “provide or enhance sustainable active travel routes within and provide or enhance sustainable active travel routes within and between urban areas” – the policy should be read alongside between urban areas and from urban areas to the countryside, DM37 Recreational routeways and regeneration policies for the opportunities to enhance the tourism and recreation economy as urban areas. Policy DM29 – Waterways and mooring facilities Question 70 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response well as opportunities for urban cooling, water sourced heating  “opportunities to enhance the tourism and recreation etc. economy” - this is identified through Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON3  “urban cooling, water sourced heating” - Local Plan (part One) policy ENV6. The policy will be amended to reference positive opportunities for regeneration in urban areas, in line with other policies in the plan. 2385 The second part of the policy moves on to consider mooring The Council notes the comments and agrees that the draft wording facilities and is considered to be less clear in terms of both its would not provide criteria to assess new marina proposals. The purpose and intent. policy wording has been amended to clarify the approach towards Policy DM29 would appear to prevent the provision of new new mooring facilities. The explanation clarifies that further marina developments within the Borough, by restricting mooring development relates to new linear or layby mooring facilities, new facilities to the extension of linear or lay by mooring facilities. The marina developments, or extensions to existing facilities. reason and justification for such an approach towards marinas is however unclear and there is no indication of any work having been undertaken to establish such an approach. Trusts position, it has no objection in principle to marinas. Such developments would however require the Trusts consent to connect to waterways owned by us, and prospective marina developers must enter and successfully complete our application process. 2385 With regards to the statement that the extension of linear or lay- The Council notes the comments. The policy wording has been by mooring facilities at existing locations will only be permitted amended to clarify the approach towards new mooring facilities. The where “pressure from boat numbers is clearly demonstrated” the explanation clarifies that further development relates to new linear meaning of this is unclear. or layby mooring facilities, new marina developments, or extensions Firstly, it should be clarified that there are a number of different to existing facilities. types of moorings such as leisure, residential, trade, short term The Council notes the comments on ‘pressure’ and ‘demand’ for etc not all of which will require planning permission. facilities. This should be read alongside other policies in the plan Where planning permission is required it is unclear what including, Local Plan (Part One) policy SOC6 Open Space Sport and “pressure” is being referred to. If it is intended to relate to Recreation – paragraph 7.42 states the definition of ‘open space Policy DM29 – Waterways and mooring facilities Question 70 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response demand for such facilities then this is not, in itself a material sport and recreation facilities’ includes natural and semi-natural planning consideration, and should not be a development green space and green corridors including canals and riverbanks. management matter. However, this is not an assessment of ‘need’ for mooring facilities Paragraph 28 of the NPPF advises that planning policies should and this is not considered through the Borough wide Open Space support economic visitor facilities in appropriate locations where Assessment. identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service The policy recognises that there is recreational pressure for new centres, and paragraph 73 goes on to advise that planning development in certain locations and aims to minimise any policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments cumulative impacts. The policy and explanation is amended to clarify of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and “Proposals for the extension of mooring facilities at existing locations opportunities for new provision and that information gained will be considered in relation to the above criteria and the potential from such assessments should be used to determine what cumulative impacts arising from further development”. The policy provision is required. criteria aim to ensure that proposals for future moorings facilities are This establishes matters of need as being distinct from appropriately located and designed. development management considerations applied to a The policy has been amended to reflect NPPF paragraph 28 and to development proposal and more a matter for policy makers. align with the strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) policy ECON3. The Consider whether the second paragraph of this policy is strictly policy aims to “support sustainable rural tourism and leisure necessary or whether existing policies in the adopted Part One developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities Local Plan or proposed elsewhere in the Part Two Plan are and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This already sufficient to enable you to determine whether proposals should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and for future moorings facilities are appropriately located and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are designed. not met by existing facilities in rural service centres” 2385 Final paragraph of Policy DM29, it is difficult to see a direct The Council notes the comments and will amend the policy wording connection between the types of development named and the to provide clarification of the approach to apply in the green belt. extensions to linear moorings. The Council agrees that planning applications would be considered The developments indicted would need to be assessed on their on their merits, in line with development plan policies in Local plan own merits in accordance with NPPF and relevant policies (Part One) and Local Plan (Part Two) and NPPF. relating to the Green Belt and Open Countryside in both Part One and Part Two of the Local Plan. 2479 Although the Manchester Ship Canal is an important part of the The Council agrees with the comments. The policy is intended to canal network within Cheshire West and Chester it is not part of apply to recreational routes and would not be applicable to the Policy DM29 – Waterways and mooring facilities Question 70 Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council Response the recreational network. Draft Policy DM29 would not be Manchester Ship Canal as a commercial waterway and statutory applicable to the Manchester Ship Canal which is a commercial harbour authority. waterway and as a Statutory Harbour Authority it would be The policy should be read alongside other relevant policies in the difficult to reconcile recreational and commercial activity. The Local plan, including DM27 Recreational Routeways, which will be Council should therefore clearly define which waterways this defined on the policies map. Policy applies to and in doing so specifically exclude the The policy will be amended to cross reference to DM37 Recreational Manchester Ship Canal. routeways as defined on the policies map. The explanation will be amended to state “The Manchester Ship Canal is an important part of the canal network within Cheshire West and Chester however this is a commercial waterway and a Statutory Harbour Authority with restricted public access”. Proposals on the Manchester Ship Canal would be considered by other relevant policies in the Local Plan, including; - Local Plan (Part One) STRAT4 Ellesmere Port; STRAT10 Transport and Accessibility; ENV9 Minerals safeguarding - Local Plan (Part Two) M8 Minerals Infrastructure. The Council notes that there are permitted development rights associated with port related uses.

DM 30 – Community facilities Question 71 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2101, 2361, Support for provision of new community facilities, however the The strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) is to concentrate 2291, 2618 policy penalises communities where the villages have not be development within the urban, key and local service centres. In turn, identified as key or local service centres. The Council should look this protects the countryside from development. The policy has been favourably on proposals for new or improved community facilities moved to the health and wellbeing section and supports within or adjoining existing settlements where evidenced to meet neighbourhood planning groups to plan for new community facilities local need. in their area. 886 The policy is welcomed, especially reference to assets of community Noted, it is intended to retain reference to assets of community DM 30 – Community facilities Question 71 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response value. value within the policy. 120 Removal of compensatory features as the facility is likely to shut The policy has a number of criteria that would allow for the loss of through non-use or non-funding. the community facility, with compensatory facilities one criterion that could be met. There could be a number of reasons for the loss of a community facility and as in the situation suggested other criteria in the policy may be appropriate. 1906 Best to consult with residents on the individual building prior to The policy will cover community facilities not just in Council handing over to private ownership. ownership, such as pubs or owned by the NHS. The policy will be used when a planning application has been made that involves the loss of a community facility. The planning application will then be consulted on as part of the planning process.

Environment (Flood risk and water management): Questions 72 to 77

DM31 – Development and Flood Risk Question 72 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response General support for this policy Comment noted.

1372 Policy should be developed to cater for the Environment Agency's retreat The SFRA acknowledges the reduced management of the from active flood management at Frodsham and Ince Marshes. The marshes. The SFRA recommends that development should not opportunity should be taken to provide a policy framework that will take place in this area due to the level of risk from a number of assist in the maintenance of active water management and biodiversity. sources, the reduction in flood risk management actions and the natural tendency of the area to flood. 1270 The opening paragraph was ringing warning bells and this is a very Comments noted. serious subject. It cannot be stressed how essential the marshes and flood plains are to the basic safety of properties from potential flooding. It has been seen countrywide that heavy rainfall can have devastating effects on homes and families. To even consider allowing any development on such land is irresponsible as it cannot fail to have repercussions. Historically there are areas where land has remained undeveloped because it will, on occasion, experience some degree of flooding. Also the land in itself provides a natural filter of the water that falls on it and then dissipates through the layers of soil to the aquifer. This is a valuable use of a natural facility which should be left to do its job. A study by the Dutch Water Sector was conducted in December 2015 by Dr Hessel Winsemius and one startling conclusion they came to stated that even though Climate Change is an issue relative to flooding, they can attribute 70% of the increase as being due to development on flood plains. A link to the section which is relative to our situation follows:- http://www.dutchwatersector.com/news-events/news/16941- expanding-build-up-areas-on-floodplains-major-driver-for-fast-growing- flood-risks-not-climate-change.html I have included this link for ease of reference and hope that it is given DM31 – Development and Flood Risk Question 72 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response some attention. 121 You do not need this if you have DM32 Policy DM31, DM32 and DM35 have been merged.

DM32 – Requirements for site specific flood risk assessments Question 73 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 122, 960, All 9 respondents supported this policy with no suggested amendments Comment noted. 1079, 1724, 1258, 1294, 1542, 1754, 2729

DM33 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) Question 74 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2843 Welsh Water support the policy requirement that SuDS must be included Agree – comments noted within the early stages of site design for developments that meet a certain criteria. We consider that for SuDS to work successfully drainage needs to be considered at the outset of the design process. The tackling of surface water at source is a vital component of sustainable development and will go a long way to mitigate against overloading sewers which can ultimately lead to flooding. The policy states that the Council are currently producing a SuDS handbook and we would welcome the opportunity to comment on the handbook in due course. 2535 It is unclear what justification the Council has to require a betterment of The Council considers that it is important to retain a requirement DM33 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) Question 74 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response at least 30% on greenfield run-off rates. The requirement departs from for the consideration of minimising surface water runoff from national policy without any justification. Cheshire West and Chester is new development, to protect existing properties from an not subject to exceptional levels of flood risk which would necessitate the increased risk of flooding. The CIRIA SuDS Manual recommends implementation of such a requirement. The Council does not appear to reducing surface runoff rates to greenfield rates, and considers a have assessed what impact this would have on development viability or betterment of at least 30% as a minimum on previously site capacity assumptions which are adopted through the SHLAA. The developed sites and neighbouring authorities also require a 30% policy should be revised to require new developments on greenfield sites reduction of surface water on brownfield sites. The policy has to provide for drainage which mimic as a minimum pre-development been reworded to clarify that on greenfield sites, surface water levels of run-off. runoff must attempt to mimic (or improve on) greenfield rates, and on brownfield sites, runoff should be reduced to greenfield rates, with a 30% reduction of existing rates, where this is not possible. The revised policy wording will be tested as part of the whole plan viability assessment of the Part Two plan. 1543 There is an area that I do not think is covered in this policy, it is the link Flood & Water Management Act 2010 legislation was not with biodiversity and the environment. To the best of my knowledge the enacted to make the LLFA and local authorities responsible for sewer system south of the Dee is a mixture of newer segregated surface the maintenance and logging of SuDS. Some SuDS systems, up to and foul sewer system and combined sewer systems. The newer the 1 in 30 year event are maintained by water / sewage segregated systems feed eventually in a combined sewer system around companies. Other local authorities have looked at obtaining a Circular drive. The combined sewer system feeds via the pumping station commuted sum for future maintenance of SuDS, but this has in Green lane on to the pumping system in Chester Road where it joins been resisted by the development industry on viability grounds. with sewerage from Saltney and the lower part of Hough Green. From In any case, developers are required to put in place maintenance Chester Road pumping station it is pumped under the Dee and on to the strategies for all SuDS that will not transfer to the water Treatment Works in Sealand Road – this plant is being upgraded to take company. additional sewerage. The surface water surges during heavy downpours present large volumes While the Council would seek to enhance biodiversity, legislation of surface water to the Chester Road pumping station. There is a storm around flood risk does not make this a compulsory activity; water valve at Chester road that can relieve the pressure by diverting however, a reference to the opportunities to enhance sewerage into the Dee. The Cefas sanitary survey report, part of the biodiversity through the provision of SUDs has been included in evidence base at the local plan hearing, identify that there were two the explanatory text. Chester locations in the top ten intermittent sewerage dischargers (by DM33 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) Question 74 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Volume) into the Dee estuary. Discharging sewerage prevents combined sewer flooding in residential areas and the associated problems. The absence of recorded sewer flooding in the areas above should not be taken as the absence of a problem. The problem is caused by surface water (rainfall) and the wide fluctuations and surges associated with climate change. SUDS systems do much to restrict these surges as long as there is enough attenuation and that they are properly maintained and functioning within the design limits. Maintenance is vital to ensure that the SUDS solution does not become blocked. Once blocked any SUDS linked to the sewer system for contingency run off will pass the water through to the combined sewerage system, potentially with the above consequences. In my opinion there should be a complete list of SUDS systems in this area, there should be a maintenance program for each system and I believe it should be included in a monitoring report. I would suggest this should be included in the partnership agreements with Welsh Water, it affects the south of the Dee area and is also of importance to Saltney. 2486 This policy applies only to developments of 10 units and over. We would Comments noted. The required threshold for SUDs comes from a suggest that developments below that threshold take other measures Written Statement, in England from 6 April 2015. The Planning such as reducing paving, permeable paving, and landscaping to reduce Practice Guidance also gives guidance on when SUDs should be water run‐off. Since 2008 any paving or driveway over 5m2 needs to be considered including for major developments proposals (10 permeable, drain into grass/planting, or requires planning permission. dwellings or more; or equivalent non-residential or mixed In practice however, many new builds, extensions, or division of plots to development) (as set out in The Town and Country Planning build on gardens, which do require permission, submit a proposal that (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. It does not conform to this requirement. is expected that major development proposals will need to We would like to ask that this policy is strengthened to ensure that all ensure that sustainable drainage systems for the management of planning applications including paving over the 5m2 threshold satisfy the run-off are put in place, unless demonstrated to be requirements for drainage of surface water as described in point 10.179. inappropriate. This is particularly necessary in areas already suffering from localised surface water flooding problems. DM33 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) Question 74 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response We do not agree with the alternative option. 1878 Jones Homes agrees that SuDS should be considered as part of new The Council considers that the requirement for SuDS is driven by development proposals but considers that some flexibility should be built the need to look at the catchment and establish whether there is into the policy to deal with situations where it is not possible. This is downstream flooding or risk of flooding, rather than specifically particularly important as 90% of SuDS are not appropriate for 90% of the for a site that may or may not flood. The proposed policy allows country. for flexibility were SuDS unachievable or hydraulically impractical Jones Homes notes that the Council has its own SuDS Design Handbook. to put in place. For clarity the policy has been amended to state There is no national guidance in the CIRIA SuDS Manual. that on greenfield sites, surface water runoff must attempt to Jones Homes agrees that restrictions on surface water runoff from new mimic (or improve on) greenfield rates, and on brownfield sites, development should be incorporated into the development planning runoff should be reduced to greenfield rates, with a 30% stage. However, Jones Homes is concerned of the treatment of reduction of existing rates, where this is not possible, unless it brownfield sites. Where flooding is not present, development proposals can be demonstrated that it is unachievable or hydraulically should only be required to reduce by 30% of that of the existing. The impractical. Furthermore, it is considered appropriate for the request for greenfield rates is unlikely to be achievable in any shape or policy to require the consideration of SuDS aligning with the SuDS form. Non-Statutory technical Standards. Where the application of SuDS is not feasible this should be demonstrated to the acceptability of the Council as part of the planning process. 1285 I agree with this proposal but I feel it could go even further. To only Comments noted. The required threshold for SUDs comes from a impose this regulation on developments that comprise of ten units or Written Statement, in England from 6 April 2015. The Planning more is leaving the door open to the potential of a development of eight Practice Guidance also gives guidance on when SUDs should be units not having specific regulations. It should be a requirement of all considered including for major developments proposals (10 new developments to demonstrate how surface water will be managed dwellings or more; or equivalent non-residential or mixed and how they will ensure that the most beneficial use is made of any development) (as set out in The Town and Country Planning water captured on site. Water is a valuable commodity and in Britain, (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. It where it often falls freely, people are rather complacent about the is expected that major development proposals will need to availability of water. Not only would capturing and re-using water on site ensure that sustainable drainage systems for the management of be beneficial to the community as a whole but it would also take strain run-off are put in place, unless demonstrated to be off our already over-stretched waste water management. If new inappropriate. developments were to incorporate some form of on site management of the surface water then this could contribute towards reducing the risks of DM33 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs) Question 74 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response flooding when what was previously open ground is developed. The use of gravel rather than tarmac for driveways is a very simple but effective step in the right direction. In DM 31 I mentioned the research conducted by the Dutch Water Sector and their findings are relevant here.

DM34 – Flood water storage and critical drainage areas Question 75 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 962, 1081, 7 of the 8 respondents support this policy Comment noted. 1731, 1296, 1544, 1758, 1846 124 This is superfluous when other policies are in place Comment noted. No change. It is important that the plan addresses issues associate with water storage and critical drainage areas.

DM35 – Reducing flood risk through site layout, design and phasing Question 76 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1935 To mitigate flood risk, developments on the flood plain should not be Comments noted. permitted, under any circumstances. Overland water flow to the rivers should also be slowed by planting more trees, and constructing 'leaky dams'. 2487 We agree with the need for this policy. It could be made more robust by It is anticipated that the detailed guidance on the types and being explicit about the types of structures or features reducing flood features of structures to reduce flood risk and SUDs will be risk, for example soft landscaping and planting, and asking that features provided in the SUDs Handbook which is currently being appropriate for local character be used, for example tree planting in the produced. rural areas. We do not agree with the alternative option.

DM36 – Water quality, supply and treatment Question 77 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Broad support for the policy and its approach (7 respondents) Noted. 126 This issue is the responsibility of United Utilities not the Local Planning When considering development proposals, the Council must Authority ensure there is adequate wastewater infrastructure and water supply capacity to serve the development in liaison with the utility companies operating in the borough (Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan (Part One)). 1993 Proposed addition to the policy text – ‘Potential pollution to any aquifer Noted, no change required - the policy as drafted does not limit irrespective of recovery time would be unacceptable, this is not limited pollution prevention to groundwater protection zones. to groundwater protection zones’. 1993 Capacity and technical ability of waste water treatment plants and water Noted – Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan (Part One) states that supply must be satisfied before planning permissions are granted. development proposals within areas of infrastructure capacity and/or water supply constraint will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater infrastructure and water supply capacity to serve the development or adequate provision can be made available. However, an addition has been made to the policy to specify that development proposals must ensure that wastewater infrastructure already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development. 1993 Our environmental policies must be considered when scrutinising Agreed disposal site proximity. 734 The policy will be particularly relevant to unconventional oil and gas Noted – issues of water quality and supply and regulations in developments which require a lot of water and produce a lot of relation to unconventional oil and gas developments will be contaminated flow back. addressed in Part Two Policy DM 50 Oil and gas development. The potential effects on the public and other land users of unregulated activities in this respect are considerable and should not be left solely to DM36 – Water quality, supply and treatment Question 77 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the utilities companies. 1289 In essence the policy is good but it is time to go further in strongly Noted – in line with Policy ENV6 of the Local Plan (Part One), encouraging more on site water capture, storage and re-use. policy DM 45 (Sustainable Construction) requires that all new developments must achieve the highest level of energy and water efficiency that is practical and viable and seeks to apply tighter water efficiency requirements for new residential development, as set out in the National Housing Technical Standards. 2250 Water supply capacity needs to be established at the Local Plan The policy has been amended to include criteria to ensure that allocations stage to ensure wastewater from planned new development new development will not cause unacceptable harm to can be treated without adverse impact upon European sites therefore biodiversity, and provide a link to Local Plan (Part One) policy ensuring the allocations within the Local Plan may be deliverable. ENV4 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity. The 'Cheshire West and Chester Water Cycle Strategy' was produced in partnership with the Environment Agency and the three water companies who operate in the borough – United Utilities, Dee Valley Water and Welsh Water. The strategy assesses the implications of proposed housing development on water supplies, wastewater facilities and on the risk of flooding. It also considers the impacts of increased water use and sewage discharge on important natural habitats such as the Dee and Mersey estuaries. In addition, the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Local Plan (Part Two) is required to evaluate the Likely Significant Effects of the Land Allocations and Detailed Policies on internationally important wildlife sites. The HRA recommendations for policy DM 36 are summarised below. 1937 Quality of river water should be protected by not allowing fracking, and Noted – issues of water quality in relation to unconventional oil having environmental strips between farmland and water courses, to and gas developments will be addressed in Part Two Policy DM 50 reduce nitrates and other agricultural pollutants entering the water. Oil and gas development. The control of nitrates and other agricultural pollutants is outside of the remit of the Local Plan. DEFRA has produced a guide to DM36 – Water quality, supply and treatment Question 77 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response cross compliance which is a set of rules which farmers and land managers must follow and includes the establishment of buffer strips along watercourses. This guidance can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac hment_data/file/579836/Cross_Compliance_2017_rules_FINAL.p df The Environment Agency also has a regulatory role with regards to certain farming practices and the Environmental Permitting Regulations. 2844 For some development sites there will be a requirement for developers Noted – this requirement will be included within the explanatory to contribute to the provision of off-site sewers to connect sites to the text. existing network and, dependant on the scale and density of the developments, for a hydraulic modelling assessment (HMA) of the network to be undertaken at the developers expense to establish adequate connection points and/or any network improvements required. Where specific improvements to a WwTW are required in order to bring a development site forward, but are not planned through the Asset Management Plan, developers can fund the required improvements through planning s106 obligations. 2844 Whilst we welcome that the policy recognises the potential odour impact Noted and agreed – the issue of odour and noise associated with upon occupiers of developments within close proximity of wastewater wastewater treatment works will be addressed through other treatment works, it is considered that this is an amenity issue rather than relevant development management policies of the Local Plan. a water quality/quantity issue and consideration should be given to rewording this section of the policy. 1993 When assessing proposals for development, please refer to the Noted and agreed– the explanatory text has been amended to Environment Agency’s Groundwater Source Protection Zones Map include references to the Environment Agency’s Groundwater together with the document ‘Environment Agency Groundwater Source Protection Zones Map together with the document protection: Principles and practice (GP3)’ to ensure any impact of ‘Environment Agency Groundwater Protection guidance development on groundwater quality in the area is best managed. The documents and provide additional explanatory text regarding document encourages planners, developers and operators to consider SPZs. DM36 – Water quality, supply and treatment Question 77 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the groundwater protection hierarchy in their strategic plans and when proposing new development.

Environment (Landscape and geodiversity in new development): Questions 78 to 80

DM37 – Trees, woodland and hedgerows Question 78 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2733, 2782, General support for the policy. Support for this policy is noted. 1908, 1853, 1762, 1547, 735 1742, 1084, 966 The policy should provide details of how much off-site Rather than applying a set formula for calculating an amount of contribution is required set by a formula. developer contribution, the policy details what is expected in terms of off-site provision (2:1 replacement of heavy/extra heavy standard, and large specimen trees in specific circumstances). These specifications are based on the British Standard and will be used to determine an appropriate amount of off-site replacement planting or equivalent contribution. 2103, 2488, Concern regarding the flexibility of the policy, specifically in The policy approach is considered to be suitably flexible - where 2043, 127 relation to instances where mitigation may be more existing trees cannot be integrated into a development, the policy beneficial, such as allowing for the removal of damaged or allows for the alternative options of replacement planting. The policy diseased trees. wording refers to expecting integration of ‘significant healthy trees’, thereby enabling flexibility for circumstances where mitigation may be Concern that the policy could restrict opportunities in the more beneficial such as when a tree is diseased or unhealthy. borough, and suggestion that caveats such as ‘if possible’ This flexibility is considered to avoid placing such restriction on should be added. development that it would lead to landowners removing significant assets prior to submitting planning applications. Further, the policy has been amended to require enhancement to existing trees, traditional orchards and hedgerows, wherever possible. This is in line with NPPF paragraph 109 which requires that net gains in biodiversity are provided, where possible. DM37 – Trees, woodland and hedgerows Question 78 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2132, 2488 Further detail should be provided to clearly define the areas Traditional orchards are mapped nationally and are available to view on designated as traditional orchards, and the requirements for DEFRA’s ‘MAGIC’ mapping system. As such, it is not felt that such their management / maintenance. information needs to be duplicated in this policy. The requirement for maintenance and management plans for traditional orchards is, and will continue to be assessed on a case-by- case basis and will be conditioned through the planning application process where necessary. 2132 Further consideration should be given the list of existing TPOs, The policy aims to provide guidance for development proposals which as we are unclear if there is a process in place for reviewing have the potential to affect existing trees, rather than reviewing the these designations or how new trees can be added. existing protected trees. Requests to register a new TPO can be made to the Council by any other party. Further information on TPOs can be found on the Cheshire West and Chester website. 2782, 2432 Policy should include a commitment that tree, woodland and Agree – the policy has been amended to require that locally native hedgerow planting will comprise locally native species in rural species are used where appropriate. This means to encourage the use centres and the countryside of locally native species, but allows for circumstances where local context favours an alternative planting scheme, such as where priorities are to benefit air quality. 2488 Off-site provision for planting trees and hedgerows may not The policy approach establishes off-site provision as the final option, be practical due to different land ownership, and would not only when integration of existing trees and on-site replacement provide the same benefit for the local residents. provision is not possible. The policy has been amended to prioritise off- site replacement provision within the locality of the development, which should contribute to ensuring that the benefits of such planting are felt locally. 2688 Reference should be added to the Mersey Forest policies for The policy explicitly requires support for the aims and policies of the CWAC and the Mersey Forest Strategy Map should be Mersey Forest Plan and provides further detail in the explanatory text. included. In line with NPPF paragraph 92 which states that an approved Community Forest Plan can be a material consideration in deciding planning applications, the policy requires that the Mersey Forest Plan is considered in planning decisions where appropriate. Further, the DM37 – Trees, woodland and hedgerows Question 78 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Mersey Forest map is proposed to be added to the Local Plan policies map to aid the implementation of this policy. 2488 Neighbourhood plans can reflect and reinforce local character Agree. Once ‘made’, neighbourhood plans will form part of the with stronger requirements for green infrastructure and development plan for the borough and will be considered in the planting. development management process. Policy DM44 ‘Protecting and enhancing the natural environment’ which considers net gains to biodiversity with new development, makes specific links to neighbourhood plans and suggests that it can be used to inform policies in emerging neighbourhood plans where there are opportunities to support net gains in biodiversity and enhancements to the ecological network.

DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2734, 1909, General support for the policy. This is the most appropriate The Council notes the comments. The Draft policy is in line with NPPF 1854, 1763, means of planning for biodiversity at a landscape scale. paragraph 117 that requires local authorities to minimise impacts on 1548, 1744, biodiversity and geodiversity and plan for biodiversity at a landscape 1085, 967 scale and to identify and map components of the local ecological networks. 1978, 736 The explanation to the paragraphs is particularly relevant to The Council notes the comments. The Ecological Networks policy should Unconventional gas and oil sites located alongside the Gowy be read alongside other policies within the Plan; Draft policy DM 50 in and Mersey basins. the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred approach relates to oil and gas development. The Council has prepared an SPD on Oil and Gas Exploration, Production and Distribution. This identifies key issues that a developer should address in any development proposals, including the impact on nature conservation/biodiversity habitats and the hierarchy of protected sites, together with any proposed habitat mitigation and compensation measures. Where necessary, DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Environmental Assessments should be undertaken. 1453 Do not agree with the map as the “Meres and mosses The Meres and Mosses catchments (buffer zones) shown on the catchments” do not include the Frodsham and Helsby illustrative map in Figure 10.1 of the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred Marshes. The marshes, meres and wetlands (Frodsham and approach relate to the statutory European protected ‘Meres and Helsby) need to be properly protected as they are a valuable, Mosses’ (SAC) sites. The Frodsham Marshes and Helsby Marshes natural protection to homes in the vicinity of these rivers. catchments are identified as ‘core areas’ and ‘corridor and stepping stones’ on the draft Ecological Network maps. In line with NPPF (paragraph 113) and Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV4 ‘biodiversity and geodiversity’ a distinction is made between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated wildlife/geodiversity sites. Protection is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and contribution that they make to the wider ecological network:  Draft policy DM 38 should be read alongside other relevant policies in Local Plan (Part Two). To aid clarity, Policy DM 38 Ecological Networks and policy DM 39 Biodiversity and geodiversity have been combined into a single policy and amended to: Include further explanation on the hierarchy of ecological designations and scale of development proposals.  Include the Draft Ecological Network on the policies map alongside the Local Plan (Part Two), to be viewed alongside other relevant designations. 1453 Further explanation of the links between the ecological The purpose of the Policy DM 38 is to protect the borough’s ecological networks policy and green belt policies. network of habitats and wildlife corridors for their ecological and biodiversity value and the function that they perform. Whereas, the role of Green Belt policy (as defined in national policy) is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The general extent of Green Belt is already established and the Council’s approach is set out in Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT9, DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response along with other draft policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) which should be read alongside draft policy DM 38 on ecological networks. 1453 The map does not feature the ‘Finchetts Gutter’ flood storage The purpose of the policy is to protect the borough’s ecological network area – the map is deficient and does not identify all areas of of habitats and wildlife corridors for their ecological and biodiversity paramount importance that should be protected from value and the function that they perform. The illustrative map in Figure unsuitable development. 10.1 of the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred approach shows the draft ecological network at a Borough wide scale and the detailed maps for this area show Finchett’s Gutter as within a ‘corridor/stepping stone’ within a wider ‘core area’ and ‘restoration area’. The aim of the policy in these areas is to maintain the existing habitat in such a way as to enable mobile species to move between important habitats and the wider landscape, rather than to protect land from unsuitable development for other reasons. However, the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred approach also includes draft policies DM31-DM 36 relating to flood risk and water management; and draft policy DM 34 controls development within or adjacent to flood storage areas and specifically refers to Finchett’s Gutter. 1551 The Habitats Regulations Assessment highlights concerns The recommendations from the Habitats Regulations Assessment will about air quality on meres and mosses due to proposed be taken into consideration in preparation of the Local Plan (Part Two) development. policies. The ecological network policy is consistent with and should be Policy should target mitigation by developers (tree planting, read alongside Local Plan (Part One) strategic policies; ponds and other carbon sink measures), with a maintenance  ENV 4 ‘biodiversity and geodiversity’ which states that where there budget and regular monitoring by an environmental group. is unavoidable loss or damage to habitats, then mitigation and compensation will be required to ensure there is no net loss of environmental value.  ENV3 ‘Green Infrastructure’ which supports the creation, enhancement, protection and management of green infrastructure (including increased tree planting). The Council’s emerging Low Emissions Strategy includes similar mitigation measures, such as tree planting and low emission vehicle DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response charging infrastructure, as a way of mitigating the impact on air quality from new development, which will be included in other policies within the Part Two plan. 2241 Natural England support the policy but recommend it could be The ecological network policy should be read alongside other relevant strengthened by bringing together ecological networks and policies; Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV3 relates to Green Green Infrastructure policy. Natural England recommends the Infrastructure. The explanation to the policy has been amended to cross policy is not restricted to “within a development” but should reference to other relevant policies. The Ecological Network will be seek to join up with other networks. identified on the interactive policies map to read alongside other relevant designations. The Council agrees that the integration and creation of green infrastructure and habitats should not be restricted to ‘within’ a development and should seek to join up with other networks. The policy has been amended to include links with the surrounding area. 2241 Natural England identify that the SA specifically seeks to The policy and explanation has been amended to include a reference to protect land and soils – this should be included in the policy to the impact on soils. clearly link back to SA. The protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land is identified in STRAT1 of Local Plan (Part One), reference to this policy is included within the explanation. In addition, both policies should also be read alongside draft policy DM 22 land contamination and instability. 2387 The map labels Rivers – request that canals are also labelled The illustrative map in Figure 10.1 of the Local Plan (Part Two) preferred as they are recognised as important corridors for wildlife. approach shows the draft ecological network at a Borough wide scale. It is anticipated that the ecological network will be identified on the Council’s interactive policies map to accompany the Local Plan (Part Two), where all river and canal corridors will be visible. 2891 It is not clear how the ecological network as set out in the The Ecological Network will be considered in the assessment of supporting evidence has been, or will be, used as a tool to potential land allocations in the Local Plan, alongside other nature guide development (section 4 policy implications). conservation designations. The Council will review existing and submitted site-related information through the Housing and Economic The Cheshire Wildlife Trust would like transparency on how Land Availability Assessment and Land Allocations Background paper, DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response ‘establishing coherent ecological networks that are more with regard to ecological networks. resilient to current and future pressures (NPPF, para 109) has The proposed allocations and Preferred Areas to be identified within influenced decisions on site allocations including landscape the Local Plan (Part Two) for sand and gravel and salt and brine will be sensitivity assessments, salt and brine extraction and sand and based on the Minerals Call For Sites. Areas of Search may also be gravel extraction. included and if so, these areas would just be based on availability of sand and gravel according to British Geological Survey records. The Minerals Call for Sites involved asking stakeholders for suggestions of sites. The sites were then assessed using a series of essential and exclusionary criteria, including fit with the approach to minerals supply set in the Local Plan (Part One) and the potential for significant adverse impacts on designations such as Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, SSSIs, RAMSAR sites or international or BAP priority habitats. Sites were then assessed under a series of discretionary criteria, including biodiversity, flora and fauna – impact on protected sites. Relevant internal and external stakeholders were also consulted on the draft findings and final outcomes report. The Ecological Network will be considered in the final assessment of potential allocations and preferred areas, alongside other nature conservation designations. The Council will review the site-related information, including the information provided as part of the Mineral Call for sites, with regard to ecological networks. Due to the nature of brine pumping and underground salt mining, potential impacts will depend on well heads and working methods to be used. All potential sites for sand and gravel or salt and brine will be thoroughly assessed in the event of a planning application being submitted. It is anticipated that the ecological network will be identified on the Council’s interactive policies map to accompany the Local Plan (Part Two). This will be used to inform the determination of planning applications in line with NPPF (paragraph 117), and read alongside other relevant policies of the development plan. DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2490 The Kelsall and Willington NDP includes designated and The relationship between emerging Local Plan (Part Two) policies and protected wildlife corridors (Cheshire Wildlife Trust Report) – ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans will be considered. these should be included. The policy explanation has been amended to clarify the relationship with designations in Neighbourhood Plans. 2565 The policy provides protection to areas that are not of The policy is in line with NPPF (paragraph 113) and Local Plan (Part One) national importance and is therefore over precautionary and policy ENV4 ‘biodiversity and geodiversity’ where a distinction is made not in accordance with NPPF (IGas Energy response). between the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated wildlife/geodiversity sites. The protection provided by the policy is commensurate with their status and gives appropriate weight to their importance and contribution that they make to the wider ecological network. The Council will ensure policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) are consistent with NPPF and that policies are justified and effective. 2783, 2433 There should be a Supplementary Planning Guidance to set The explanation to the policy has been amended to cross reference to out the types of habitats to be created, restored and managed other relevant policies, and the Council may consider whether further etc. This could encourage the identification of areas suitable guidance is required through a Supplementary Planning Document for further designation and areas suitable for Nature (SPD). However, the Ecological Network will be identified on the Improvement Areas (e.g. Sandstone Ridge). interactive policies map to be read alongside other relevant designations. Nature Improvement Areas are a non-statutory designation and are included within the key features of the ecological network. 2783 Encourage the identification of areas suitable for further Nature Improvement Areas are a non-statutory designation and are designation. Supplementary Planning Guidance is encouraged included within the key features of the ecological network. The Meres which could identify the types of habitats to be restored, and Mosses of the Marches (Shropshire and South Cheshire) are the managed or created. only Nature Improvement Areas in the Borough. The term ‘stepping The policy should identify Nature Improvement Areas. stones’ is included in NPPF paragraph 117 and NPPF Annex 2 Glossary The term ‘Stepping Stones’ is a dated term. which defines these as: “Stepping stones: Pockets of habitat that, while not necessarily connected, facilitate the movement of species across otherwise inhospitable landscapes.” The Council may consider whether further guidance is required through a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). DM38 – Ecological network Question 79 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 128 Delete the sentence about increasing core areas as the The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that pursuing consequence is they will grow exponentially. sustainable development includes moving from a net loss of biodiversity to achieving net gains for nature, and that a core principle for planning is that it should contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV4 seeks to provide net gains of natural assets and Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 38 on ecological networks is consistent with these strategic aims.

DM39 – Biodiversity and geodiversity in new development Question 80 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2735, 1910, General support for the policy. The support for this policy is noted. The draft policy in is line with NPPF 1855, 1765, paragraph 113 which requires that the distinction be made between 1549, 2434, the hierarchy of protected sites so that protection is commensurate 2045, 737, 129 with status. 1747, 1086, 968 Concern over the lack of benchmarks in the policy which could Evaluating the value and extent of features is referenced in the policy as enable developers to set their own evaluation criteria for being part of an Ecological Assessment. The policy explanation goes on determining the value and extent of features. to state that ecological assessments should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and competent ecologist. As such, concerns that developers would set their own evaluation criteria should not arise. 2498, 2249 The policy should better link to draft policy DM38 – Ecological Policy DM38 (Ecological Networks) and DM39 (Biodiversity and Networks. geodiversity in new development) have been merged into one policy which sets out how development proposals should consider biodiversity/geodiversity in relation to sites and assets of importance, within the wider ecological network. DM39 – Biodiversity and geodiversity in new development Question 80 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2249 Natural England welcome the policy but suggest that it could The amended policy, DM44 Protecting and enhancing the natural be broadened to include maintain the borough’s habitats and environment, provides further detailed guidance on implementing Local biodiversity. Plan ENV4 which requires that development does not result in any net loss of natural assets and should seek to provide net gains. DM44 states that new development will be permitted where it does not result in any net loss of natural assets. However, for clarity, explicit reference to maintaining and enhancing the borough’s habitats and biodiversity has been added into the policy explanation.

Part2PA_2249 Natural England highlight that potential pressures of The Local Plan (Part One) establishes the overall quantum of increased access on sensitive habitats, including designated development, the impacts of which on the natural environment were sites, should be recognised and mitigated against. assessed through SA and HRA. Local Plan (Part One) policies ENV4 and ENV3 already recognise and set out how the Council seeks to address It is important to ensure the potential adverse impacts on the potential added pressure on environmentally sensitive sites, from proposed level of growth on the built and natural individual development proposals and increased population as a result environment are fully understood, and that appropriate of the level of development proposed in the borough, as follows: avoidance, mitigation and, where necessary, compensation  ENV4 - requires that the Council be satisfied that the measures are in pace to off-set adverse impacts. implementation of a proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the area’s environmentally sensitive areas. In order to avoid and manage cumulative and in combination impacts, the policy states that the Council will, where appropriate, work in partnership with other local authorities and relevant bodies. It specifically recognises the issue of recreational pressure as a result of increased population on the Mersey Estuary/Dee Estuary SPA/SAC and Ramsar sites and highlights the need for the Council to work with other local authorities and organisations and take account of ongoing assessments and recreational management studies in the determination of development proposals.  ENV3 - highlights that the increase in population as a result of the level of development proposed in Cheshire West and Chester DM39 – Biodiversity and geodiversity in new development Question 80 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response could lead to recreational impacts on internationally-designated habitat sites. It promotes the use of green infrastructure to help reduce pressure on sensitive European sites by directing users to alternative recreational open spaces As a development management policy, this policy sets out how individual development proposals are assessed, in line with the strategic approach set out in Local Plan (Part One).This policy has been merged with policy DM38 – Ecological Network which will ensure that development impacts on biodiversity are considered beyond individual development proposals, and recognised in relation to the borough’s wider ecological network. 2249 Natural England suggest that this policy should include soils in The policy has been amended to address soils. In response to Natural addition to geodiversity. Important soil resources should be England’s comments on draft policy DM1, reference to soils has been protected (e.g. best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural broadened to cover the conservation of soil resources rather than just land) and appropriate management and handling of soils development impacts on soil. Protection of the best and most versatile during the development process is essential. It is important to agricultural land is covered within Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT1 make the link between geodiversity, biodiversity and soil which seeks to minimise the loss of high grade agricultural land. resources. However, reference has also been added into the policy explanation to draw links to STRAT 1 and provide further guidance on how the Council will deal with applications on best and most versatile agricultural land. Soil is also covered in relation to ‘Land contamination and instability’ (DM32), and ‘Waste management facilities’ (DM54). 2249 The policy should take a strategic approach to the The amended policy, DM44 ‘Protecting and enhancing the natural conservation, enhancement and restoration of geodiversity environment’, should be read alongside Local Plan (Part One) policy and promote opportunities to incorporate geodiversity as part ENV4 which sets out the strategic approach to safeguarding and of development. enhancing biodiversity and geodiversity. The policy seeks to provide Ensure that appropriate weight is attached to the geodiversity guidance on the implementation of policy ENV4, particularly with interest of designated sites as well as geodiversity interests regards to the consideration of development proposals. When read within the wider environment, and maximise opportunities to together, this policy and Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV4 provide a include geodiversity in and around developments as part of strategic approach to conserving and enhancing geodiversity and more DM39 – Biodiversity and geodiversity in new development Question 80 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the design process. detailed guidance on geodiversity considerations within development proposals. The potential to include geodiversity in and around a development as part of the design process will be assessed on a site by site basis, informed by the guidance within this policy.

Environment (Historic environment): Questions 81 to 85

DM40 – Development in Conservation Areas Question 81 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2736, 2224, General support for the policy. Comment noted. 1913, 1808, 1768, 2389 2435 The Trust supports the inclusion of separate policies for the different Noted elements of the historic environment in order to develop a distinctive identity for the borough 2135 The Conservation area for Kingsley is simply based on the area included Comments noted – the policy explanation recognises the need to within the previous local plan. We believe that there is sufficient review the boundaries of existing Conservation Areas. The evidence to suggest that the conservation area for the village should be Council’s Total Environment Team are currently in the process of extended in various to ensure that any future development in those updating some of the Conservation Area Appraisals and locations takes account of the unique character of such areas. Management Plans which will be available on the Council’s We note that there is a commitment to continue to produce webpage: ‘Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans’ but are unclear https://cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and- as to whether this will apply to all existing conservation areas or will building-control/total-environment/conservation-and- review such areas to see if the defined areas need to be amended. design/conservation-areas-and-apprais.aspx Timescales setting out when such appraisal and managements plans are expected to be published would also be useful along with a commitment to engage fully with parish and town councils during this process. 1298 The policy should also say that in Chester, developments will have to Noted. New design should comply with all relevant conservation comply with the manifesto for Contemporary Design approved as part / design policies and documents for Chester. of the One City Plan. The requirement that development "will also be required to have Agree – take out reference to rural Conservation Areas in the regard to the local dominant building materials, methods of policy and add the assessment criteria to the bullet points within construction, features and detailing" should apply to ALL conservation the main body of the policy. areas, not just those in rural conservation areas. 1755, 1087, Have some concern that the determination of this policy will rely on an Noted – Professional expertise is employed in the consideration 969 individual’s “subjective” view. of matters associated with the historic environment. DM40 – Development in Conservation Areas Question 81 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 191 Re: ‘f. Established layout and spatial character'. This should explicitly This should be where appropriate and where physically evident. mention retaining the existence, alignments and widths of historic Amend to 'Established layout, spatial character of building plots, routes. the existing alignments and widths of historic routes and street Re: ‘a: Demolition of non-listed buildings …’. Where permission is hierarchy, where physically and historically evident, and the granted for the demolition of such buildings, they should be contribution that open areas make to the special character and appropriately recorded before demolition. appearance of the conservation area'. Add 'where appropriate and on a case by case basis'. Not all non- listed buildings are of significance. 130 Take out method of construction in rural CAs. It is what it looks like not Agree – take out method of construction and insert 'building how it is built. Yet another specialist report wanted typology that best reflects the special character and appearance of the area'.

DM41 – Listed Buildings Question 82 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2372 This policy refers to Part1 Policy ENV5 and the need to protect heritage The policies of the Local Plan (Part Two) should not duplicate the assets and we suggest that the proposed Policy DM41 should include Local Plan (Part One). the following extract from ENV5:- “Where fully justified and assessed, the Council may consent to the minimal level of enabling. Development consistent with securing the building’s future in an appropriate viable use.” Policy DM41 – Listed Buildings should incorporate the following extract from Policy ENV5 of the Adopted Part 1 Local Plan: “Where fully justified and assessed, the Council may consent to the minimal level of enabling development consistent with securing the buildings future in an appropriate viable use.” 2363 BEC does not agree with Policy DM41 as currently drafted. Comments noted: The Policy must be consistent with national Policy (particularly Policy has been amended as follows: paragraphs 55, 132, 133, and 134 of the Framework). Development proposals will only be permitted which would: DM41 – Listed Buildings Question 82 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response As currently drafted the Policy is more onerous and introduces • Safeguard the significance of a listed building and its setting, constraints beyond that set out in national Policy. securing its optimum viable use and minimise the harm to any The Policy seeks to prevent all harm, the Framework looks to balance existing heritage assets on the site including any curtilage harm with public benefits (paragraphs 133 and 134). listed buildings; There is no requirement in the Framework that change of use be • Retain a listed building or structure, any curtilage listed necessary to ensure long term preservation as is proposed in the structures or any features of special architectural or historic current Policy (see paragraphs 55 and 134). landscape interest. In the rare event that permission for An adverse impact to environmental setting is not a justification to demolition is granted, conditions will be attached to ensure withholding consent that is supported by the Framework. Any such no demolition shall take place until a scheme for impact would need to be considered as part of an overall planning redevelopment has been approved and a contract for the balance. works has been made. The Policy needs to be re-drafted so that it is consistent with and reflects national Policy. Replace preserve with conserve in line with the NPPF. 1914 This helpful policy can be used to refuse planning for Dee House Comment noted. 2437 The Trust supports the inclusion of separate policies for the different Comments noted. elements of the historic environment in order to develop a distinctive identity for the borough 2390 We are generally supportive of such an approach Comments noted. 2786 I have used the information on Historical Buildings surveyed 1977/79 If this database relates to Locally Listed Buildings, the local list is with over 40 buildings shown for Cuddington – likewise could you still in place. This is on the Historic Environment Record and please confirm that this is still in being. CWaC Interactive mapping. The details are extracted from a database – is that database still in being and if so could I have access please as there may be other useful data, such as dates, that I can use. 1373 I suggest specific policy be developed for the amphitheatre site - given Policy CH6 recognises the Amphitheatre as a significant historic its international importance and the juxta position of other heritage asset for the City. assets 192 Add: ‘In the rare event that permission for demolition is granted, Agreed – add to second bullet point of the policy text. conditions will be attached to ensure no demolition shall take place until a scheme for redevelopment has been approved and a contract for DM41 – Listed Buildings Question 82 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the works has been made’; Also add: ‘Where applications for demolition or alteration of non- designated heritage assets are permitted, the Council will normally Agreed – add into policy DM42 (non - Listed Buildings and make it a condition of consent that applicants arrange suitable Structures) programmes of recording of features that would be destroyed in the course of the works for which consent is sought’ (cf CDLP ENV 47). 131 If a statement is submitted to the local planning authority then internal Noted. It is normal practice to condition this requirement. arrangement should enable it to be passed to whoever keeps the historic record rather than it being the responsibility of the applicant.

DM42 – Non-listed buildings and structures of archaeological and historic interest Question 83 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 193 We broadly welcome this approach. Comments noted – text has been added to state that prior to the Add: ‘In the rare event that permission for demolition is granted, loss of the asset, an appropriate level of survey and recording will conditions will be attached to ensure no demolition shall take place be expected including where appropriate archaeological until a scheme for redevelopment has been approved and a contract for investigation. The results of which should be deposited with the the works has been made’; HER. Also add: ‘Where applications for demolition or alteration of non- designated heritage assets are permitted, the Council will normally make it a condition of consent that applicants arrange suitable programmes of recording of features that would be destroyed in the course of the works for which consent is sought’ (cf CDLP ENV 47). 1769 Whilst I agree with the proposals, appropriate consideration to The policy explanation makes reference to the fact that Neighbourhood Plans should be included within DM42. Neighbourhood Plans are key to understanding local features of heritage value. 2438 The Trust supports the inclusion of separate policies for the different Comments noted. elements of the historic environment in order to develop a distinctive identity for the borough DM42 – Non-listed buildings and structures of archaeological and historic interest Question 83 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1537 We are responding on behalf of Cheshire Gardens Trust, which exists to Agreed – The policy title has been amended to ‘non-designated promote the understanding and conservation of historic designed heritage assets’, however the policy explanation includes a landscapes, and works with The Gardens Trust as the statutory definition of a non-designated heritage asset and includes consultee. For further information see landscapes in this definition. http://thegardenstrust.org/planning-leaflet.html and http://www.cheshire-gardens-trust.org.uk/?Aims Agreed – inclusion of ‘landscapes’ in the policy explanation. Response to Question 83 - We agree with this approach but have the following suggested amendments and information. Policy DM42: suggested amendment Policy DM42 actually covers locally listed landscapes far more comprehensively than Policy DM43, but they are not included in its title. To make this clear, we request that the title is changed to ‘Non- listed buildings, structures and landscapes of architectural and historic interest’. Para 10.225: for information CGT have developed a methodology and researched sites for inclusion on a ‘Local List’ of non-registered landscapes for the ex-Chester District, since there was no List in the previous Local Plan. Both the Historic Environment Record and the Conservation Officers are aware that this draft list is being prepared, and it is now ready for discussion with them. Lists for Vale Royal and Ellesmere Port & Neston already exist from the previous Local Plans, and these could be updated by CGT working with CWaC. Para 10.226: suggested amendments, as underlined The Local List for Cheshire West and Chester is held on the Historic Environment Record and will be reviewed from time to time. These buildings, structures and landscapes are usually considered ‘non- designated heritage assets’ under the National Planning Policy Framework. The inclusion of a building, structure or landscape on the list is a material consideration in the determination of planning DM42 – Non-listed buildings and structures of archaeological and historic interest Question 83 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response applications. 2136 We note (and support) the fact that the policy takes account of the fact Comments noted and have been passed to the Council’s Total that not all buildings, structures or landscapes of significance are Environment Conservation Team. captured on either the national lists or local lists and these are termed undesignated heritage assets, and that in such cases where a building, structure or landscape can demonstrate its significance then the policy would apply. However, we still believe that a commitment to carrying out a full review of the ‘local list’ is still required and that this should be done with the support and help of parish and town councils. In Kingsley, there are several examples of buildings which we believe should be included on the ‘local list’ including both of our Methodist chapels. We would welcome the opportunity to work with CWAC to help review and update the ‘local list’ as soon as possible. 2046 Policy DM42 cross references Policy ENV 5 of the Local Plan Part One Amendments to the policy have been made to add clarity and to which seeks to safeguard or enhance non-designated heritage assets. reflect the NPPF and ENV5 of the Local Plan (Part One) and the Policy DM42 outlines that when considering proposals which may affect need to assess the scale of any harm and the significance of the locally important buildings or structures the Council will have regard to heritage asset. two things. Firstly, the contribution which the buildings structures or landscapes make to local distinctiveness, local townscape or rural character, and secondly the conservation of interesting or unusual features, architectural detail, materials, construction or historic interest. With reference to non-designated heritage assets this policy states that where the significance of these can be demonstrated the above considerations should be applied This policy is ambiguous and confusing. § 135 of the Framework relates specifically to non-designated heritage assets and the policy test that should be applied in these cases is that a balanced judgment should be reached having regard to the scale of any harm and the significance of the heritage asset. Recommend that Policy DM42 should be redrafted DM42 – Non-listed buildings and structures of archaeological and historic interest Question 83 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to better reflect the guidance / requirements set out in the Framework and to ensure that a clear policy approach is provided. 2491 Consultation Response on behalf of Kelsall Parish Council and Kelsall Comments noted. and Willington Neighbourhood Development Plan Group. We agree with the approach to this policy and are pleased to see the inclusion of undesignated heritage assets of demonstrable significance. 2121 The policy could be further enhanced to demonstrate what should be Agreed – text amendments have been included in the policy to submitted with applications affected these assets and where their loss include a requirement for an appropriate level of survey and is permitted, that a level of recording will be required. See suggested recording of the asset prior to its loss. text below: Development proposals affecting a locally listed building, structure or landscape which fails to have regard to their special qualities of architectural or historic interest, their features of interest or their settings will not be permitted. In considering proposals which may affect locally important buildings and structures, the Council will have regard to the following:-  The contribution which the buildings, structures or landscapes make to local distinctiveness; local townscape; or rural character; and  The conservation of interesting or unusual features; architectural detail; materials; construction; or historic interest. All proposals will need to be accompanied by an assessment of the asset. This should also demonstrate how the loss will be replaced by a development of a high quality and design and how the salvage and reuse of special features can be incorporated. Where robust evidence can demonstrate that the public benefits of the development would clearly outweigh the harm, prior to the loss of the asset, an appropriate level of survey and recording will be expected including where appropriate archaeological investigation. The results of which should be deposited with the HER. DM42 – Non-listed buildings and structures of archaeological and historic interest Question 83 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response It is recognised that not all buildings, structures or landscapes of significance are captured on either the national lists or local lists and these are termed undesignated heritage assets. Where the significance of these buildings, structures or landscapes can be demonstrated, the above policy consideration should be applied. 132 If a building is not important enough even to make it to a local list then The NPPF and the Local Plan (Part One) refers to all heritage policies like this should not apply assets. Conservation decisions are based on a proportionate response with regard to the extent and type of a heritage asset’s significance.

DM43 – Registered landscapes Question 84 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2566 This policy is not in accordance with national policy. Para 132 and 133 Comments noted – the policy has been amended to include the of the NPPF are clear that great weight should be given to the requirement for an assessment of the significance of the conservation of designated heritage asset’s. However, it does provide landscape. for development that could cause substantial harm or loss if it can be demonstrated to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh harm or loss. Policy DM43 as written recommends refusal of planning permission where registered landscapes are adversely affected. There is no clear indication on the significance of impact and we recommend the policy be amended in accordance with National Policy. 2364 BEC does not agree with Policy DM43 as currently drafted in so far as Comments noted – the policy has been amended to include the it relates to registered parks and gardens. requirement for an assessment of the significance of the The Policy must be consistent with national Policy (particularly landscape. paragraphs 132, 133, and 134 of the Framework). As currently drafted the Policy is more onerous and introduces constraints beyond that set out in national Policy. The Policy seeks to withhold permission in the event of any adverse DM43 – Registered landscapes Question 84 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response impacts, the Framework looks to balance harm with public benefits (paragraphs 133 and 134). The Policy needs to be re-drafted so that it is consistent with and reflects national Policy. 1539 We agree with this approach but have the following suggested Agreed – the policy title and text has been amended to refer to amendments, as underlined. Registered Parks and Gardens and Registered Battlefields. Para 10.230: Registered? Parks and Gardens and Historic Battlefields on the Historic Environment Record are identified on the policies map. Policy DM42 which relates to locally listed assets has been Clarify whether Registered or Historic, because at this stage only amended to include locally listed landscapes. Registered Parks and Gardens can be identified. However we agree that the Plan should have the flexibility to be updated, namely that ‘the Council will seek to identify such assets on a Local List’ and ‘the List… will be reviewed from time to time’ (10.225 and 6). Ultimately it would be good to have all locally listed landscapes and their boundaries as another layer on the policies map. Therefore 'historic' may be more appropriate for the period of years covered by the Plan, but clarify that this applies to the Local List sites as well as the Registered sites. 2439 The Trust supports the inclusion of separate policies for the different Comments noted. elements of the historic environment in order to develop a distinctive identity for the borough 2048 Policy DM43 refers to registered landscapes, with specific reference to Amendments to the policy have been made to add clarity and to parks and gardens and battlefields, whilst Policy DM44 is in relation to reflect the NPPF and ENV5 of the Local Plan (Part One) and the archaeology. Both of these policies cross reference Policy ENV 5 need to assess the scale of any harm and the significance of the (Historic Environment) of the Local Plan Part One. Both Policy DM43 heritage asset. and DM44 refer to designated heritage assets, these policies therefore need to be in line with §132 to §134 of the Framework. This section of the Framework relate specifically to designated heritage and highlights that the more important the asset the greater the weight that should be attached to it. DM43 – Registered landscapes Question 84 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response It is important that the policies in the Local Plan Part Two reflects the tests set out in the Framework. The Framework states that if the harm to a heritage asset is deemed to be substantial then the proposal needs to achieve substantial public benefits to outweigh that harm. If the harm is less than substantial, then the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its optimum viable use. Recommends that the policies relating to heritage assets need revising to ensure consistency with the Framework. 1415 Heritage and history is an important feature of Cheshire West & Noted and agreed Chester with Chester being a particularly significant area for tourism. There is a great deal of history within the landscape of the entire county and many of the features around Cheshire which should be preserved. Both Frodsham and Helsby hills feature ancient hillforts and have a long history around them. Such features of our history need to be protected and preserved from irresponsible development that would affect the nature of these areas. 229 In similar vein to the previous comment we consider that the detailed Amendments to the policy have been made to add clarity and to wording should be amended as follows: reflect the NPPF and ENV5 of the Local Plan (Part One) and the “In line with policy Policy ENV 5 of the Local Plan (Part One), need to assess the scale of any harm and the significance of the development proposals which will adversely affect the appearance, heritage asset. historic characteristics, integrity, setting and or key views of historic parks and gardens identified on the national register and / or within the Local Plan will be refused.”. …and… “Development proposals which will adversely affect the historic significance, appearance, integrity and or setting of battlefields identified on the national register will be refused.”. 194 We broadly welcome this approach. Agree reference to the Cheshire Historic Landscape This policy should make reference to The Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation Final Report (found on the HER) will be added to DM43 – Registered landscapes Question 84 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Characterisation Final Report, which forms part of the evidence base the policy explanation. for the policy. 133 You cannot prevent sub-division of land if it is in different ownership. Noted – policy does state ‘have regard’ to prevention of If the local authority want it as one unit they should buy the land subdivision’ .

DM44 – Archaeology Question 85 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2499 Policy text uses the term 'appropriate assessment' which is a formal Agreed – amend policy text term used in conjunction with Habitats Regulations Assessment and could therefore cause confusion. Amend the policy text to use alternative form of words e.g. appropriate archaeological assessment. 1918 This policy will be used to approve Dee House/pub transformation? Comment noted – no action required 2440 The Trust supports the inclusion of separate policies for the different Comment noted elements of the historic environment in order to develop a distinctive identity for the borough. 2878 Policy DM43 refers to registered landscapes, with specific reference to As the representation identifies, policy DM44 cross references parks and gardens and battlefields, whilst Policy DM44 is in relation to Policy ENV5 of the Local Plan (Part One) and states that archaeology. Both of these policies cross reference Policy ENV 5 development proposals affecting archaeological heritage assets (Historic Environment) of the Local Plan Part One. Both Policy DM43 which meet the requirements of ENV5 will be supported. Policy and DM44 refer to designated heritage assets, these policies ENV5 is in conformity with NPPF and states that the degree of therefore need to be in line with §132 to §134 of the Framework. This protection afforded to the heritage asset will reflect its position section of the Framework relate specifically to designated heritage within the hierarchy of designations. Likewise, policy DM44 and highlights that the more important the asset the greater the states that decisions will need to take into account the weight that should be attached to it. significance of the heritage asset and the scale of any loss or It is important that the policies in the Local Plan Part Two reflects the harm. tests set out in the Framework. The Framework states that if the harm For clarity and to reflect the NPPF, the following addition to the to a heritage asset is deemed to be substantial then the proposal explanatory text to DM44 is proposed: DM44 – Archaeology Question 85 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response needs to achieve substantial public benefits to outweigh that harm. If “Before proceeding to weigh benefits against any harm, decisions the harm is less than substantial, then the harm should be weighed will need to take into account the significance of the heritage against the public benefits of the proposal including securing its asset and the scale of any loss or harm and whether alternative optimum viable use. means of delivering the development benefits could achieve a Recommend that the policies relating to heritage assets need revising more sustainable result,.” to ensure consistency with the Framework. “Any harm or loss will require clear and convincing justification. Where robust evidence can demonstrate that the benefits of the development would clearly outweigh the harm, prior to the loss of the asset, an appropriate level of survey and recording will be expected including where appropriate archaeological investigation. The results of which should be deposited with the Historic Environment Record”. 1770, 1091, No. This policy is not strong enough to protect historic archaeology in Comments noted – NPPF paragraph 128 sets out what local 974 the rural areas, where little or no “desk top” evidenced records exist planning authorities should require of a developer to describe due to the lack of previous controls. the significance of any heritage assets affected. The level of detail (There is a flayed approach in the existing process of a desk top search should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more revealing little evidence, so it is then assumed nothing exists, and than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the development is allowed to proceed unmonitored. The consequently proposal on their significance. As a minimum, the relevant of this, given the financial pressures on developers is that nothing is historic environment record should have been consulted and the highlighted even if it did exist. Hence further evidence never gets heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where added to the records.) necessary. In these areas where there has been previous lack of control and While the policy cannot go further than the current requirement there is a potential archaeological interest as determined by the local for a field evaluation prior to the determination of the planning community, (i.e. Neighbourhood Plan identified) applications must be application, the following text has been added to paragraph 3 of accompanied by an appropriate assessment of the archaeological the policy to strengthen the requirements for detailed impact of the development. A field evaluation prior to the agreement, before permission is granted: “Where remains are of determination of the planning application must also be required. National Significance (e.g. within a Primary Archaeological Zone as defined by the Chester Archaeological Plan), detailed agreement on ground impacts should be secured before planning permission is granted” DM44 – Archaeology Question 85 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 230 It is considered that the detailed policy should be amended to make Agreed – amend policy text specific reference to the ‘settings’ of archaeological resources. 195 We broadly welcome this approach. Comments noted - While, it is accepted that detailed agreement Re:Para 4 - Where possible detailed agreement on ground impacts on ground impacts should be secured before planning permission should be secured before permission is granted. is granted, it is considered that how remains of national Re:para 10.232, add: ‘In all cases the policy aims to minimise the significance should be preserved, should be agreed through an damage to archaeological remains caused by development. Well archaeological assessment and/or field evaluation. Therefore, preserved remains of national significance should be preserved in paragraph 3 of the policy has been amended as follows: “A field situ’. evaluation prior to determination of the planning application may Reference should be made of the Cheshire Historic Town Surveys and also be required. Where remains are of National Significance (e.g. The Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation Final Report and within a Primary Archaeological Zone as defined by the Chester The Cheshire Historic Landscape Characterisation: Managing Historic Archaeological Plan), detailed agreement on ground impacts Landscapes, together with the Cheshire Environment Record, which should be secured before planning permission is granted”. form part of the evidence base for the policy. Agreed – text will be added to the explanatory text to reflect this The Chester Area of Archaeological Importance and the Primary and suggestion. Secondary Archaeological Zones, together with areas of Noted - The explanatory text already provides a direct weblink to archaeological potential in other towns and landscapes of the Cheshire Archaeology website which includes links to the historical/archaeological interest should be indicated on the policy Historic Environment Record (HER). The HER links to the Council’s map, as is the case with conservation areas. interactive mapping which shows the heritage designations and includes references to the relevant evidence base. Further information has been added for clarity. It is considered that the Local Plan policies map would become too detailed if the Archaeological Zone and Areas of Archaeological Importance were to be shown and would duplicate the HER. 134 Agreed but yet another report required Comment noted – while the policy may require appropriate reports to be provided alongside planning applications, this is only for sites of known (or potential archaeological interest) and not for all applications. In any case, this is not different from the current approach applied by the Council. No action required. DM44 – Archaeology Question 85 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Question 104 CWaC should aim for a holistic approach to the historic environment. Comments noted – heritage assets are defined in ENV5 and Policies on conservation and archaeology should therefore be includes archaeological sites. seamless; they should be reviewed together in detail to ensure that they are in harmony and that there are no gaps or duplication. For example, explanation para 10.231 to policy DM 44 (Archaeology) includes buildings in its scope; conversely, modifications to a listed building may well produce (below-ground) archaeological discoveries. The alignments of historic street are treated as a conservation matter, but in advancing understanding they also fall firmly within the sphere of archaeology, and their successive surfacings are clearly an archaeological matter.

Environment (High quality design and sustainable construction): Questions 86 to 90

DM 45 – Sustainable construction Question 86 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 743, 1777, General support for the policy approach No change necessary. 1919, 2379 24 Include an additional clause to ensure that the generation of The draft policy has been amended to encourage the incorporation of renewable energy (solar) has been adequately considered in the on-site renewable energy and low carbon generation including with design of new or renovated buildings. solar panels and photovoltaic cells in within the explanation. 135 Does new residential development include householder extensions? The draft policy has been amended to remove the requirement for a If so how can they be expected to provide evidence of use? sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the sustainability objectives have been addressed. However, the policy has also been amended to state the Council’s overall objective that all new development should aim to achieve the highest levels and energy and water efficiency that is practical and viable. 975, 1092, Is this achievable for single dwellings? The draft policy has been amended to remove the requirement for a 1775 sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the sustainability objectives have been addressed. However, the policy has also been amended to state the Council’s overall objective that all new development should aim to achieve the highest levels and energy and water efficiency that is practical and viable. 1302 Policy should include references to high quality design in detail. Comments noted. The policy sits within the ‘High quality design and sustainable construction’ section within the plan because it expands on how element of Part One policy ENV6 will be implemented. An additional policy ‘Design, character and visual amenity’ has been created to cover these issues. 1800 Consideration of high quality design should begin early in the The policy explanation has been amended to state that consideration process – long before a planning application is submitted. of sustainable design and construction issues should take place at the earliest possible stage in the design process. 1882 Requirement for a sustainability statement should be restricted to The draft policy has been amended to remove the requirement for a proposals for 10 or more dwellings. sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the sustainability objectives have been addressed. DM 45 – Sustainable construction Question 86 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1944 Policy could be unduly restrictive of change of use proposals where a The draft policy has been amended to remove the requirement for a building already exists and sustainability improvements may not be sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the as readily forthcoming. sustainability objectives have been addressed. However, the policy has also been amended to state the Council’s overall objective that all new development should aim to achieve the highest levels and energy and water efficiency that is practical and viable. 2392 Waterways can provide opportunities for developments to Comments noted. The policy has been amended to encourage incorporate innovative technologies to make use of its water for developments to connect to the district heat networks, as work in this cooling and or heating (see DECC Heat Map canal layer). area progresses and the use of innovative design solutions – which would include the use of water for cooling and/or heating. 2567 Request an explanation is provided within the supporting text that Comments noted. While the draft policy has been amended to this policy is not relevant to minerals extraction. remove the requirement for a sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the sustainability objectives have been addressed, the Council considers that the overall objective that new developments should aim to achieve the highest levels and energy and water efficiency that is practical and viable, should apply to all development. The policy has also been amended to encourage the use of sustainable construction techniques that promote the reuse and recycling of building materials, maximise opportunities for the recycling and composting of waste which would apply to minerals extraction, in line with other policies in the Local Plan. 2679 Object to the need to submit a sustainability statement for all The draft policy has been amended to remove the requirement for a applications, which is too onerous, especially for outline sustainability statement to be submitted to demonstrate how the applications. Amend policy to determine the need for the sustainability objectives have been addressed. The explanation has submission of a sustainability statement on a case by case basis. been amended to remove reference to the Code for Sustainable Specific references to standards set by other regimes, or which have Homes, which has been abolished have been removed, and the now been abolished, such as Code for Sustainable Homes, should be Council’s approach with regards to Building Regulations and national removed entirely from the policy. housing standards has been clarified.

DM 46 – Parking and Access Question 87 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 811 Thought should be given to parking on new development, not just It is considered that sufficient Local Plan (Part One) policies already the amount of parking space for each housing plot. Streets should exist to enable these factors to be taken into account. ENV 6 be designed to accommodate some on road parking, especially with promotes safe, secure environments and access routes and ease of high density developments. movement; and STRAT 10 states that parking provision should minimise traffic congestion. However, a further bullet point has been added to the draft policy to ensure that any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road safety are mitigated through other highways improvements. 977, 1093, Policy needs to be stronger in ensuring peoples individual safety by It is considered that sufficient Local Plan (Part One) policies already 1779 either incorporating measures to assist access to and around the site exist to enable these factors to be taken into account. ENV 6 by pedestrians, and cyclists. Development in rural settlements promotes safe, secure environments and access routes and ease of should deliver or contribute to providing infrastructure to provide a movement, with priority for pedestrians and cyclists. The draft policy continuous connection to the settlement centres. also requires the provision of access on the grounds of safety and the incorporation of measures to assist access to the site by pedestrians and cyclists. However, a further bullet point has been added to the draft policy to ensure that any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road safety are mitigated through other highways improvements. 1945 The policy should specifically note that any future parking standards The draft policy has been amended to include the Council’s parking are subject to appropriate public consultation and should be worded standards which will be subject to public consultation during the “to have regard to standards OR have regard to the needs of forthcoming Regulation 19 stage. The draft policy wording has been development” to allow flexibility for the consideration of parking amended to state that parking must be provided in accordance with levels based on the characteristics of a development, particularly the needs of the development and the parking standards set out in the relevant to an existing operational business/ use. Council’s adopted SPD. 1998 Adequate parking must be provided within the city centre for older The draft policy has been amended to include the Council’s parking and disabled people who are blue badge holders, including standards which set requirements for the provision of disabled parking designated spaces within public car parks, on street parking and for bays within new developments, across the whole of the borough. The larger adapted vehicles and accessible minibuses. Council’s adopted ‘Parking Standards’ SPD includes recommended dimensions for disabled car parking spaces necessary to accommodate DM 46 – Parking and Access Question 87 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response larger adapted vehicles. The general level of disabled parking in the city centre is outside the scope of the Local Plan, but falls within the Council’s borough-wide parking strategy, which is currently being prepared. 2441 Policy should emphasise that the design of new car parks in rural Comments noted. The design of new development and consideration areas should be appropriate to their setting and the character of the of visual amenity/ character of the area is considered in a general local landscape. Design and Amenity development management policy, elsewhere within the Local Plan (Part Two), in addition to existing Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV6. 2638 The respondent seeks assurances that access to residential and The draft policy seeks to protect residential areas from unacceptable business addresses will still be permitted, or, where access is impacts on amenity from traffic (and in particular heavy goods restricted, that suitable alternative routes will be made available. vehicles) generated by new developments, rather than existing And confirmation that their heavy goods vehicles will not be subject business operations. The wording has been amended to make it clear to controlled movement to and from their warehousing premises. that mitigation measures, such as routeing agreements and other highways improvements, can be agreed between the Council and the developer, to prevent the issue from arising.

DM 47 – Hazardous installations Question 88 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2569,  General agreement with the policy It is acknowledged that it isn’t clear what types of developments are 1920,  The policy applies to Unconventional Oil and Gas covered in the policy. Additional text has been included to clarify the 1979, development and baseline and regular monitoring position of the policy. 1473, 745 information should be made available.  Opposition to further underground hazardous waste submissions Request for the text to clarify that this policy doesn’t apply to mineral DM 47 – Hazardous installations Question 88 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response extraction and oil and gas development.

DM 48 – Development in vicinity of hazardous installations Question 89 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 280  General support for the policy It is considered that to ensure up to date information, pre  Health and Safety Executive recommends showing the application advice relating to a site and the hazards risk is the most hazard consultation zones and pipelines on the policy appropriate process. The hazard zones can change over time and mapping. It is recommended that there is contact with the can relate to uses that are no longer in operation, blighting pipeline operator for up to date information development coming forward.

DM 49 – Advertisements Question 90 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 6 Agreed the policy is sound and does what is exactly is required by The policy text has been amended to state that moving signs and the regulations. intermittent signs will not normally be accepted. These types of Why should "moving signs" or "moving messages" (whatever this advertisements usually detract from the character of the area, means) or "intermittent" lighting be considered automatically especially in conservation areas. harmful to amenity and public safety? There may be circumstances The explanation to the policy says that standardised solutions to in which they will be so harmful; but it cannot be automatically illuminated box advertisements are unlikely to achieve permission. assumed and the Regulations do not permit proposals to be This type of advertisement is usually bulky, which is out of scale with dismissed out of hand in this way. the building and its surroundings, and not made out of high quality Similarly, in paragraph 10.277, there should be no assumption that material. Additional text has been added to explain the types of box internally illuminated box advertisements are unlikely to be illumination and the text suggests including sufficient information to acceptable in conservation areas or on listed buildings. Many the council to allow an informed decision. conservation areas (including Chester) include thriving commercial DM 49 – Advertisements Question 90 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response areas (and commercial uses within listed buildings). Why will the Council find internally lit signs unacceptable in such areas or within such buildings? 139 Agreed but I did not know we had an area of special control. Cheshire West and Chester has an area of special control in the rural area around Northwich and Winsford. This can be viewed on the policies map. 1922 Be great if Boughton was included in this policy. The policy, once adopted, will apply to the whole borough, including Boughton.

Environment (Alternative energy supplies): Questions 91 to 93

DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 10 10.287 Central Government is generally supportive of unconventional The paragraph relating to Government energy policy and Paragraph shale oil and gas development and has stated that it can enhance our 144 of the NPPF has been updated to explain that the UK energy security, provide economic growth and be an important part of Government’s energy policies seek to encourage the use of natural our transition to a low carbon future. Paragraph 44 of the National resources from within the UK as part of self-sufficiency in energy Planning Policy Framework states that local planning authorities should production. Also recognising that there needs to be a mix of energy give great weight to the benefits of the mineral extraction, including to sources, including unconventional oil and gas. the economy. A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation This policy dates from 2012 and is woefully out of date, and fails to reflect of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive the UK's commitment to reducing the impact of climate change agreed emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be several months ago. responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies.  It can be demonstrated that greenhouse gases associated with Minerals planning authorities should assume that other statutory fugitive emissions will not lead to unacceptable adverse regimes operate effectively and should not need to carry out their environmental impacts. THIS CLAUSE IS ILLOGICAL AS A own assessment. The role of the other statutory bodies is 'NEGATIVE' CANNOT BE 'DEMONSTRATED'. ANY FUGITIVE explained in the Oil and Gas Exploration, Production and EMISSIONS WILL LEAD TO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL Distribution Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and IMPACTS. HOW IS 'ACCEPTABILITY' TO BE DETERMINED? reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.  The cumulative impact on local communities and the environment with existing or proposed development of a similar The criterion relating to cumulative impacts has been retained. kind in the same or adjoining areas is considered acceptable. THIS Additional information relating to the assessment of cumulative CLAUSE IS ALSO VAGUE. impacts is provided within the SPD.

25 Third para is an incomplete restatement of legislation identified in 10.285 Reference to proposals for hydraulic fracturing only being – suggest you just reference this legislation to provide consistency with permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater protection the other sections of this document – also this legislation is very areas has been removed from the policy as the policy should not incomplete - does not include associated environmental legislation. repeat legislation. Reference to the relevant regulations has been Bullet point 4 should include obnoxious gasses from both fugitive and added to the policy explanation. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response treatment operations on site, or this be a separate statement by itself Reference to the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing regulations within Bullet point 8 is a repeat of bullet point 3 – suggest delete. the explanation has been retained and reference to the legislation Last para – formation of site liaison committee should have a time frame only (rather than inclusion of associated environmental legislation) i.e beginning at outset of planning application through to 5 yrs after is considered sufficient. abandonment, at appropriate time intervals. It should also include who is A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation on this committee (including but not restricted to: Council (Chair) / of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive Residents (50% of total) / Police (traffic accidents) / Local Health Authority emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be (PHE approach to monitor illness and react retrospectively is woefully responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The inadequate for these developments) / EA / HSE / OGA). Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. Need to include a statement on the long term management of the site Minerals planning authorities should assume that other statutory post abandonment (otherwise the costs default to the council). regimes operate effectively and should not need to carry out their Need to include a Cheshire based statement on the disposal of waste own assessment. The role of the other statutory bodies is solids and liquids from the development. explained in the oil and gas SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. Bullet point 8 referring to proposals being appropriately screened from public view has been deleted as it is covered in bullet point 3. It is not appropriate to set time frames for the operation of site liaison committees within the policy. This will depend upon the proposal and requirements of local residents. The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD. The policy already refers to the need for applications to be accompanied with details of how the site would be restored. Reference to site restoration is included in policy ENV9 in the Local Plan (Part One) and there will be a specific policy relating to restoration of minerals sites within the Local Plan (Part Two). Additional information relating to decommissioning, restoration and aftercare is provided within the SPD. Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater. The Environment Agency are responsible for protection of water quality and prevention of water pollution. They also ensure appropriate treatment and disposal of mining waste and manage any naturally occurring radioactive materials. As such, it is not necessary to refer to disposal of waste solids and liquids within this policy. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. 33 As in Australia, based on their experience, there should be a 2 km Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones banned/exclusion zone from any residential areas. may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential use of above ground separation distances. 37 10.281 - It refers to 'quality of life'. What about the quality of life of the No response required. people in the surrounding area of Fracking. They have a right NOW for quality of life. Is Fracking really going to stand up for itself and say it will The Environment Agency are responsible for monitoring and improve 'quality of life'. Truly a very poor argument. We live in a controlling the chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluids and democratic society, we have rights, we are 'supposed' to have our this requires environmental permits. The EA are also responsible say. Yet we are being pushed, kicking and screaming into a life where for protecting groundwater and surface water from pollution and there wouldn't be quality of life for people nearby Fracking sites. dealing with industrial emissions activity, water discharge and radioactive substances. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the 10.284 - Chemicals. We're always hearing about the chemicals being controls of other statutory bodies. Policy DM 36 also refers to harmful. Would the people who are undertaking these tests like these water quality, supply and treatment. chemicals to be placed hear their homes, their children, their health DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response centres and so it goes on. Exploratory drilling is relatively short-term and can be intensive.

10.286 - Exploratory drilling - 'short-term, but intensive'. Please read The Environment Agency are responsible for protecting those words, does that not shock you, make you think 'hang on, groundwater (including aquifers) and surface water (including rivers short'term, but intensive'. Sit up and think about what this means!! Also and water courses) from pollution. They will also assess potential it mentions the 'short term' could be anything from 6 months to 2 years - impacts on water levels. An environmental permit will be required to my mind there's nothing 'short-term' about that. But imagine the for oil and gas developments and may include groundwater activity 'intensive' bit thrown in over 2 YEARS!!! and abstraction. Additional information relating to surface and ground water protection is provided in the SPD. OTHER ----- Where is the water coming from???? We have thousands more people on our land, taking water to live. There are no new Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water reservoirs and if there are some in the 'background' they won't come quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water close to looking after 'humans' if a drought happened along. All it will resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental take is a very hot long summer and we'll be on stand pipes. Humans can impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater. survive a long time without food, not long without water. The water should be treasured, not wasted on destroying the land beneath our feet!

OTHER ---- Where is the water going???? Not in my back yard - I can hear many people saying and it certainly won't be in the back yards of the 'people at the top'.

Shame on all of you who promote Fracking! 40 I do not believe the safeguards you have in place are enough. The geology Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water in this area has many fault lines so there is a high risk of water from quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water fracking polluting aquifers. The waste water from fracking and test drills resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental contains toxic compounds and radioactive materials which may pollute impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater. water supplies, farmland and groundwater. Its disposal is problematic also. The most toxic waste would be transported by tanker and the M56 is The Environment Agency are responsible for monitoring and already congested, with the motorway closed due to accidents on average controlling the chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluids and DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response about once a week. These tankers increase traffic on the M56 and may this requires environmental permits. The EA are also responsible have to go along other roads in the event of accidents and congestion. for protecting groundwater and surface water from pollution and There is no genuine benefit for local people. The jobs in this industry go dealing with industrial emissions activity, water discharge and mainly to people from elsewhere while local residents have additional radioactive substances. Fault lines can impact on transmission of pollution and inconvenience. House prices will fall (there is evidence this water and potential pollutants and this will be taken into account happens from areas where fracking and test drilling has been done, both by the Environment Agency. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the in the UK and abroad.) In any case, climate change is serious and we do controls of other statutory bodies. not need more hydrocarbon fuel sources. The policy already states that environmentally preferable alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where possible. Additional reference to the use of pipelines has been added in order to minimise traffic and above ground facilities.

Oil and gas developments would provide a range of employment opportunities.

The potential impact on house prices cannot be taken into account in the determination of planning applications.

The Government are generally supportive of oil and gas developments. 140 Scrap the liaison committees as a policy requirement. They no doubt will The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed be set up anyway but this is too prescriptive. from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD. 172 As a geographer I am concerned about the geological effects of fracking. Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water Once the rock strata are fractured, there is considerable evidence that quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water groundwater containing toxins can move along cracks to contaminate resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental groundwater and surface water. Our drinking water comes from the impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater. borehole at Plemstall, our milk and food crops come from the fields around, so fracking poses to us a serious threat of poisoning. Is the The Environment Agency are responsible for monitoring and DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response council, and are the contractors, prepared to face the cost of legal action controlling the chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluids and following decisions that may damage the health of local residents? this requires environmental permits. The EA are also responsible for protecting groundwater and surface water from pollution and dealing with industrial emissions activity, water discharge and radioactive substances. Fault lines can impact on transmission of water and potential pollutants and this will be taken into account by the Environment Agency. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. 236 I do not agree with fracking in the Uk. We should be investigating cleaner No response required. safer means of energy production. Support for the section of the policy relating to noise and vibration  I am glad to see that you propose that " unavoidable noise and is noted. vibration should be controlled /mitigated /removed at source." An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be How do you propose to assess that this has been achieved? Will there be submitted as part of a planning application. If so, this will include surveys of birdlife/wildlife flora/fauna diversity? Will these be public? information about wildlife and biodiversity and will be a public How frequently will they be carried out? document. The Council will need to receive sufficient information as part of any application to be able to establish whether there are I fail to see how the seismic surveys can be carried out without affecting likely to be detrimental impacts on wildlife and biodiversity. birds, mammals ,insects/worms underground and burrowing inhabitors Support for the section of the policy relating to water resources is like rabbits, mice, moles, voles etc.let alone the drilling and fracking. noted.

 I am glad that you have proposed that sufficient water resources Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water should be available, and feel that there should be safeguards quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water protecting water sources from being utilised, to the detriment of resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental both the community and of the wildlife. impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater.  I am concerned that there are not enough safeguards re waste water disposal, and the general quality and safety of our water The Environment Agency are responsible for protection of water supply. quality and prevention of water pollution. They are also  The point about other mineral resources ie Salt being left DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response uncontaminated and fit for future human consumption is responsible for monitoring and controlling the chemical content of important. hydraulic fracturing fluids and this requires environmental permits  I am sure there are many other items but these are my immediate and dealing with water discharge. The Local Plan cannot duplicate concerns. the controls of other statutory bodies.

Support for the reference to protection of mineral resources is noted.

260 Please consider a rewording of the policy wording "It can be A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation demonstrated that greenhouse gasses associated with fugitive emissions of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive will not lead to adverse environmental impacts" with "Any hydrocarbon emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be extraction and production must contribute towards the minimisation of, responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The and adaption to, the effects of climate change." Additional wording which Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. could follow but which may be out of context here as may be considered The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and more applicable to an overall strategic policy " This includes helping to reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and The requirement to reduce and mitigate climate change is covered associated infrastructure." specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) and the Plan should The revised wording will assist CWaC in complying with S.19(1A) of the be considered as a whole, when making decisions on planning 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act which provides applications. "Development plan documents MUST (my emphasis) (taken as a whole) include policies designed to secure that the development and use of land in the LPA area contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change"

The obligation to include policies which meet that specification is absolute they "MUST" be included. 753 But, bullet points 4 and 5 should omit the word 'unavoidable' as it is The word ‘unavoidable’ has been removed from bullet point 4 and superfluous and could lead to argument over interpretation. Point 13 DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response regarding 'fugitive emissions' should include the clarification that they 5. apply to all stages and all points in the production, transport and use of the product. A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive An additional point should be made requiring evidence of the emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be consideration and feasibility of carbon capture, which should be responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The encouraged. Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the oil and gas Another point should include the requirement for health and SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the environmental and threshold baseline information and regular policy. monitoring, with all data being made available to the public for independent and peer review to maintain transparency and public Carbon capture and storage technology is not sufficiently confidence in the industry and the regulators. developed at this time to make it economically viable. Carbon capture and storage is not a Government requirement and a policy requirement for evidence of the consideration and feasibility of carbon capture could add unnecessarily to costs for applicants.

Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline conditions and on-going monitoring. 386 My concerns in relation to shale oil and gas. Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water *Health - there is an increasing amount of peer reviewed social sciences resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental articles coming out of the US which indicate that the impact of fracking on impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater. the air and soil content has a direct link to health of people and animals in the immediate area. The chemicals used in 'fracking fluid' are (as far as I'm Policy SOC 5 in the Local Plan (Part One) states that development aware) protected by legislation to remain secret rather than being that gives rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality disclosed to the public. The only way we know what has been used in the of life (e.g. soil, noise, water, air or light pollution, and land US in fracking fluid is because concerned individuals have tested samples DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response of contaminated water. A number of the chemicals used in the US are instability, etc) including residential amenity, will not be allowed. known human carcinogens (i.e. they cause cancer). In the US, animals and humans have experienced headaches, loss of smell, irritated skin, The Environment Agency are responsible for monitoring and asthma... These effects are not felt immediately, but can be several years controlling the chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluids and after the fracking process has begun. So our government has a duty of this requires environmental permits. The EA are also responsible care to its citizens to look beyond the immediate energy and financial for protecting groundwater and surface water from pollution and benefits and safeguard the health of the nation. dealing with industrial emissions activity, water discharge and radioactive substances. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the * Environment - the process of fracking is aiding the degradation of the controls of other statutory bodies. natural world around us on a local and global scale. Locally, the pressure at which the shale rock is fractured ('fracked') often results in the fracking An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be fluid travelling outside of its intended area, and contaminating the soil submitted as part of a planning application. If so, this will include (and air when it reaches the surface and evaporates). This can damage information about wildlife and biodiversity and will be a public soil quality for agricultural purposes, it reaches waterways and kills fish document. The Council will need to receive sufficient information and plant life as well as land animals that drink from the waterways. On a as part of any application to be able to establish whether there are global scale, we have already exploited more of the planet's natural likely to be detrimental impacts on wildlife and biodiversity. resources than we can afford to - speaking purely in terms of carbon emission and global warming. We should be investing in renewable The policy already states that environmentally preferable energy resources, not attempting to access further finite resources of gas, alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where oil and coal which we already know are incredibly damaging to the possible. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that environment. Fracking is part of the extreme energy cohort of energy new development will be required to demonstrate that additional extraction - meaning that we have reached a point in human history traffic can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the whereby our need for energy is surpassing the techniques we have existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory traditionally used to harvest it. Fracking is the gas equivalent of mass arrangements can be made to accommodate the additional traffic deforestation - it is readily destroying the planet to allow for human before the development is brought into use. Policy DM 46 relates consumption. Again, out of duty to this generation and those beyond, we to parking and access and additional text has been added to this should not be extracting gas. policy to state that developments should not create any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road safety that cannot be * Practical - the impact of fracking on a small scale in the UK will widely satisfactorily mitigated by routeing controls or other highways differ from the experience of the wells across vast areas of the US. In the DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response UK, we do not have huge areas of countryside without residents in which improvements. the impact would be minimised. Fracking requires huge quantities of water to be added to chemicals to make up the fracking fluid. This means The SPD identifies that applicants must provide for the articulated lorries travelling country roads every day to replenish the maintenance of the local highway infrastructure should damage water supply at the fracking pad. This means lorries travelling through occur. This could be referenced in conditions and does not need to villages and along roads not intended for heavy haulage vehicles. Not only be specifically covered in the policy. will this disturb countryside life, it will damage the roads and require local council finance to repair the potholes etc. which are dramatically No amendment required as the comment relates to Government increased by large numbers of heavier vehicles on the road. policy and support for unconventional oil and gas.

* Democratic - people across the UK have demonstrated and voted at a local level on multiple occasions against fracking. We've seen fracking camps at Barton Moss and Barmoor most famously engage with the police over months to (for the most part) exhibit the right to peaceful assembly in protesting exploratory drilling. We have seen councils vote against fracking following pressure from local residents. The people of the UK do not want fracking - they do not want it to spoil the countryside, they do not want it to damage their immediate water, air and soil resources, they do not want to worsen and already catastrophic and irreversible climate change process, they do not want their democratically elected representatives to ignore their voices over what is a crucial energy decision of our time. 1569 1. In bullet points 4&5 omit the words ‘unavoidable’ as it is The word ‘unavoidable’ has been removed from bullet point 4 and redundant and open to dispute/interpretation 5. 2. Expand Bullet Point13 as follows o It can be demonstrated that greenhouse gases associated A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation with fugitive emissions at any point in the production, of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive transport, use of the product, and after wells have been emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be sealed and abandoned will not lead to unacceptable responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. adverse environmental impacts, in particular contribute Minerals planning authorities should assume that other statutory DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to global warming. regimes operate effectively and should not need to carry out their 3. Expand on Bullet Point 7 as follows own assessment. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of o Environmentally preferable alternatives to road travel are other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is considered and used where possible to transport explained in the oil and gas SPD and reference to this has been materials to and from the site. Where road transport is added to the explanation to the policy. used during the production and transport of the product, the developer be required to finance the repair of public The policy already states that environmentally preferable roads where negatively impacted by the traffic. alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where 4. Add the following bullet points: possible. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new development will be required to demonstrate that additional  Noise levels of drilling, fracturing , generators, traffic etc need to traffic can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the be kept to a low level relevant to the surrounding area existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory  The developer be required to pay CWAC to obtain independent arrangements can be made to accommodate the additional traffic and adequate baseline information tests of ground, water and air before the development is brought into use. The SPD identifies within the agreed radius of each drill point and laterals, and to that applicants must provide for the maintenance of the local monitor the same at agreed and reasonable (eg every 3 months) highway infrastructure should damage occur. This could be intervals to enable effective assessment of effects on public referenced in conditions and does not need to be specifically health and the environment, with all data being made available to covered in the policy. the public for independent review. Monitoring to continue indefinitely even after wells have been sealed and abandoned. The policy also includes a criterion relating to noise. Details are  The data obtained by the developer-funded independent weekly also provided in policy DM 21 noise and the SPD includes additional monitoring of well integrity, as required by the Environment information relating to noise. Agency, should be made available to the public for independent review. The Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have statutory roles in relation to impacts and monitoring and it is not  The developer be required to take full legal responsibility for accidents and contamination of ground, air and water and for possible to duplicate their controls by requesting baseline negative health impacts and negative impacts on properties monitoring as part of the policy. However, the SPD states that resulting from their operations and to demonstrate adequate applicants should consider providing baseline and on-going health insurance to cover reparation following all such eventualities. surveillance monitoring.  There should be implemented a minimum distance requirement DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response from residential development; The Council cannot control whether data provided to the Environment Agency is made publicly available. In addition I am concerned for the following reasons Impacts on health and safety or contamination would be dealt with The development of unconventional oil and gas is a relatively new by the Environment Agency or Health and Safety Executive. The technology globally, and very new to the UK. I am concerned that there planning system should not duplicate these controls. The view of has been no independent social, health, environmental and economic the statutory bodies will be taken into account when a decision is impact assessment of shale gas production in the UK. There is therefore made on the application. Policy DM 22 also refers to land considerable uncertainty around decision-making concerning contamination and instability. unconventional oil and gas with a complete reliance on an untested regulatory framework. The only evidence available is from one well test- Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 126) states that above fracked in the UK, that led to a moratorium, and that from other countries ground separation distances are acceptable in specific such as the US and Australia.The plan fails to recognise the necessity for a circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific precautionary approach. assessments and other forms of mitigation measures (such as working scheme design and landscaping) a certain distance is 1. In reference to explanation note 10.287 which states that local required between the boundary of the minerals site and the planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of adjacent development. This must be assessed on a case by case mineral extraction, including to the economy, policy DM50 basis and a standard separation distance will not be included within appears to be giving greater consideration to economic the policy. The SPD refers to the potential use of above ground sustainability than to social and environmental sustainability. separation distances. 2. There should be, over-arching all the concerns over the potential local impacts of fracking, an acknowledgement and heavy The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional emphasis made of the fact that there is an urgent need to tackle oil and gas extraction. Social and environmental considerations are climate change which we now know to be the gravest threat included within this policy and also within other specific policies in existing to life on our planet. Policy DM50 fails to take account of the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan this need in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Part Two). The requirement to mitigate climate change is covered caused by fossil fuels. As there is no reference to the specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and requirement to mitigate climate change within this draft policy or proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). within adopted Strategic Policy ENV7 (Part 1 of the Local Plan); DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the plan is inconsistent with national policy and is unsound.

In my view, policy DM50 as currently drafted does not ensure that the plan meets the test of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and is therefore unsound. 1442 Whilst I can agree with the approach I really feel we could go further and Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 126) states that above stronger without being seen to be obstructive. In fairness to the ground separation distances are acceptable in specific character and nature of certain facilities I believe that it would not be circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific unreasonable to impose a minimum distance from hospitals, schools and assessments and other forms of mitigation measures (such as outdoor sports facilities. A two or even a five kilometre exclusion zone is working scheme design and landscaping) a certain distance is suggested for any activity relating to oil & gas development including required between the boundary of the minerals site and the exploration in order to protect these facilities from heavy traffic, noise, adjacent development. This must be assessed on a case by case fumes and any other invasive activity. basis and a standard separation distance will not be included within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential use of above ground Also, the restriction of only below 1200 metres is stated for specific separation distances. groundwater areas but surely we could impose a minimum depth for all areas. The restrictions on depth relate to Government legislation and it is not possible to introduce specific rules for Cheshire West and Monitoring the facility after use should be laid down from the outset just Chester. as it is with certain other activities in this document. I believe that by the The Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive have very nature of the activity it should be a requirement early in the process statutory roles in relation to impacts and monitoring and it is not that a security deposit is placed in such a manner that the community is possible to duplicate their controls by requesting baseline protected from the activity being commenced by one company and then monitoring as part of the policy. However, the SPD states that continued by another and subsequently each blaming the other for any applicants should consider providing baseline and on-going health failures or leaks. This requirement could be written into the Local Plan surveillance monitoring. and later fine-tuned to suit the specific activity but the important issue is that the local community do not find themselves shouldering the burden The appropriateness of a bond will depend on the proposal. The to rectify abandoned projects in years to come. National Planning Policy Framework states that bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be The surrounding area and access roads must be taken into consideration sought in exceptional circumstances; as such it is not possible to DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response early in the application process as it is unrealistic to expect rural roads to require bonds through the policy. endure a big traffic increase. We must be mindful of these facts and protect the rural areas from becoming industrialised. The occasional The policy already states that environmentally preferable tractor is accepted as being part of country life and patience is exercised alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where for them since it is part of the way of life. A great increase in many more possible. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that and regular, large vehicles driving on the narrow, winding roads would new development will be required to demonstrate that additional take a heavy toll on the road surface and cause congestion for local traffic can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the residents. existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can be made to accommodate the additional traffic An Environmental Impact Assessment should be an initial requirement before the development is brought into use. just as it is for wind and solar energy installations. The proposal should be accompanied by an EIA and possibly also a Landscape & Visual Impact Policy DM 46 relates to parking and access and additional text has Assessment, from the start including a detailed assessment of the full been added to this policy to state that developments should not impact such an operation could have on the area. create any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by routeing controls or other highways improvements. Base-line readings of air, water and samples of the soil make-up should be a requirement in order to be able to accurately measure and identify any The SPD identifies that applicants must provide for the detrimental changes. maintenance of the local highway infrastructure should damage occur. This could be referenced in conditions and does not need to be specifically covered in the policy.

The requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment is set out in legislation and depends upon the nature of the proposal. Landscape and visual impact assessments may be required as part of this process. 887 There are a number of detailed comments that the parish wishes to make. The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed These are as follows: from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD. The text within the explanation states that regulator site liaison DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response DM50 - Oil and gas development committees should be held, where there is interest from local residents. Also that operators should liaise with local communities The policy states that formation and organisation of regular site liaison when preparing new proposals and throughout the period of committees is required. Operators should liaise with local communities working and restoration of oil and gas sites. Additional information when preparing new proposals and throughout the period of working and relating to community liaison is provided within the SPD. restoration of oil and gas sites.

In the event of any proposals for oil and gas development are made on land adjoining Great Boughton Parish we would expect that the parish is included within any liaison committee to ensure that impacts on the community are minimised. 981 In the statement “The cumulative impact on local communities and the Local communities will be consulted on relevant applications and environment with existing or proposed development of a similar kind in their views will be taken into account when the Council makes a the same or adjoining areas is considered acceptable” it needs to be decision on planning applications. defined who this is acceptable to. This should be the local community. 1098 No- In the statement “The cumulative impact on local communities and Local communities will be consulted on relevant applications and the environment with existing or proposed development of a similar kind their views will be taken into account when the Council makes a in the same or adjoining areas is considered acceptable” it needs to be decision on planning applications. defined who this is acceptable to. This should be the local community. 1155 All provisions seem sensible but some do not go far enough to protect Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones residents and the local environment may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required - some locations should be ruled out completely by the use of exclusion between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and zones e.g. around schools and hospitals occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard - fugitive emissions are not limited to greenhouse gases so this needs to exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential be reworded. No adverse environment impacts are acceptable. use of above ground separation distances.

- it should be clear that consideration of cumulative impacts includes both A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response simultaneous and sequential development emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The - more detail is required on what form "community liaison" is expected to Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. take The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. - some developments have already been agreed for 25 years. While technically this is "temporary" it does not seem so to those affected: for The criterion already refers to cumulative impacts with existing or anyone aged over 55 this is in effect their remaining lifetime. The proposed development in the same or adjoining areas. definition of "temporary" with regard to this type of development needs to be much narrower It is not appropriate to set more detailed requirements on the form of community or site liaison as this will depend on the proposal and the requirements of local residents.

The policy explanation states that exploration is a short-term activity, typically between six months and two years. It is not considered necessary to set a maximum time period within the policy as this will depend upon the specific proposal, however the policy already states that proposals for exploration of hydrocarbons will only be permitted if exploration is for an agreed, temporary length of time. 1375 I don't consider these proposals go far enough so as to ensure that all Protection of human health and the environment, in terms of developments and their subsequent cessation protect human health and pollution, emissions and emergency preparedness – are dealt with the environment, nor do they give the local community a sufficient say in by the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency. The the determination of these applications. Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and I consider that nothing short of the provision of complete, open and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. transparent information to the local community about all aspects of the proposals, including the protection of human health and the Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment environmental safeguards to be provided, disaster and emergency will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore preparedness, funding, compensation, community revenue or benefit cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response arrangements, aftercare etc should be accepted. conditions and on-going monitoring. An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be submitted as part of a planning It is the management of controversial developments, such as may be application. If so, this will include information about water and encompassed by these proposals that will show how effective and chemical use, environmental safeguards and aftercare. democratic the local policy arrangements are. The policy already refers to the need for applications to be I refer you to the amendments I have already tabled to the Local Plan accompanied with details of how the site would be restored. Links Working Group (both with regard to policy and for the SPD) for additional have been added to policy ENV9 in the Local Plan (Part One) and comments which I request are incorporated here: the proposed restoration of minerals sites policy in the Local Plan (Part Two). Additional information relating to decommissioning,  Need for openness and transparency throughout. restoration and aftercare is provided within the SPD.  Good neighbour policy and arrangements. The Community Benefit Fund is an offer from UKOOG members for  Full safety case and detailed plans. £100,000 at each well site and 1% of revenues. The Shale Wealth  Emergency plans, preparedness and resources. Fund is up to 10% of tax revenues arising from shale gas production  Insurance and compensation arrangements. to be used for the benefit of local communities. Both of these  Community benefits. potential payments are outside the planning process and levels  Consultation and local democracy – commitment to holding local cannot be specified in the Local Plan policy. poll or referendum. The planning application process provides an opportunity for interested parties and local people to submit comments and demonstrate whether they support the proposal. The Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the requirements for consultation with local communities. The SCI also encourages developers involved in ‘significant’ planning applications to carry out independent public consultations prior to the submission of schemes, providing the community with an early opportunity to become involved in proposals for their area. This could take the form of public exhibitions, meetings workshops or media coverage etc. Results from any public consultation exercise DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response undertaken by the applicant should form part of the application. It would be difficult to prescribe in policy (or the SCI) what form local consultation should take, when the most effective methods will depend on the type and location of individual proposals on a case- by-case basis. 1403 I object to the draft mineral policies contained within CWaC Land The requirement to mitigate climate change is covered specifically Allocations and Detailed Policies (Preferred Approach consultation 2016); by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed principally as it fails to comply with the legal duties that policies in the policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). plan as a whole must contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change (Section 19, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.) The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional oil and gas extraction. Social and environmental considerations are Specifically, Policy DM50 (Oil and Gas) makes no reference to the included within this policy and also within other specific policies in requirements of the NPPF (paras 94-95), including the need to plan for the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan development in ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As there is (Part Two). no reference to the requirements to mitigate climate change within the draft policy or within adopted Strategic Policy ENV7 (Part 1 of the Local The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assesses the impact of the policy, Plan) the policy is inconsistent and therefore unsound. not the impact of oil and gas development. The policy is considered to have positive effects on climate change, biodiversity, water, air, The policy explanation for Policy 50 has been formed under the proviso of land and resources, and human health compared to the situation giving "great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction; including the without the policy. economy" (para 144 - NPPF). Such reference should however be also made within the context of the wider aims of sustainable development - The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional which include social and environmental sustainability, which aims to oil and gas extraction. contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. In considering the economic sustainable development objectives ahead of A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation social and environmental ones the ability of the policy to deliver of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive sustainable development (re para 182 NPPF) is diminished. emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The I am also concerned that the Sustainability appraisal assumes that Policy Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. DM50 (which addresses unconventional hydrocarbon extraction) will lead The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to " positive effects" in terms of its ability to tackle issues connected to reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. climate change, biodiversity, water, air, land and resources, and human health. This is not supported by evidence. Indeed, in the Medact reports Impacts on health and safety or contamination would be dealt with of 2015 and 2016, "Health & Fracking", the conclusions are strongly by the Environment Agency or Health and Safety Executive. The opposite to those in this draft policy. Only this month a report from Oil planning system should not duplicate these controls. The view of Change International, in conjunction with among others Christian Aid, has the statutory bodies will be taken into account when a decision is highlighted the need to keep oil and gas underground in order to avoid made on the application. Policy DM 22 also refers to land climate catastrophe.. See "The Sky's Limit". contamination and instability.

I am also concerned that the plan fails to recognise the precautionary Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones approach, and in particular to the development of unconventional may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, hydrocarbons, given that only one well test-fracked in the UK, which led based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required to a moratoriu,. As there is little evidence from the UK itself, the planning between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and has either to rely upon evidence from other countries such as the USA occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in and Australia, or to acknowledge that there is a great deal of uncertainty certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard present in the decision-making processes around unconventional oil and exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential gas, and to reword its policy accordingly in line with screening all such use of above ground separation distances. developments for Environmental Impact Assessment (IEA). Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new I object to policy DM50 for the following reasons: development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing,  The policy fails to take into account the need to tackle the causes or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can of climate change in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the emissions caused by fossil fuels; development is brought into use.  The policy fails to take account of public health concerns, including concerns over the production of waste and possible The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise, which impacts for groundwater and biodiversity; covers this issue in sufficient detail and can be assessed. Additional  The policy fails to implement a minimum distance requirement criteria relating to noise are covered in policy DM 21 and the SPD from residential development, including schools; The policy fails includes further information relating to noise. to the planning impacts of identified by affected local DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response communities have been fully addressed (including highway safety The policy already includes criteria relating to minimising impacts linked to HGV movements, noise and landscape). on the landscape. Impact of proposals on landscape is also covered by policy GBC 5 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and policies STRAT 9 In my view, Policy DM50 as currently drafted does not ensure that the and ENV 2 in the Local Plan (Part One). plan meets the test of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and is therefore unsound, 1459 Fugitive emissions in the oil and gas industry can be very damaging to the A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation health of local people. It must be demonstrated that fugitive emissions of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive will be kept to an absolute minimum and will not have any detrimental emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be effect on local residents. Continuous testing for fugitive emissions should responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The take place and there should be an emergency plan submitted to show Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. how fugitive emissions will be stopped quickly and efficiently. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. Unconventional oil and gas development produces a huge amount of toxic waste water - details of how this is to be dealt with must be submitted, to The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed include the anticipated volume of waste water, how it is to be from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. transported, how it will be treated and what will happen to it after However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD. treatment. Policy DM 36 within the Local Plan (Part Two) refers to water quality, supply and treatment. It will ensure that sufficient water resources are available and proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the flow, quantity or quality of surface or groundwater.

The Environment Agency are responsible for protection of water quality and prevention of water pollution. The policy cannot duplicate the controls of statutory bodies. 1485 This policy fails to comply with the legal duty that policies in the plan as a The requirement to mitigate climate change is covered specifically whole must contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to climate by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed change (Section 19, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). Studies policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). in the US and Australia have shown fracking cannot be carried out without DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response massive leaks of methane, even in normal operations. The CCC report, The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional 'Compatibility of Onshore Petroleum with meeting UK carbon budgets' oil and gas extraction. Social and environmental considerations are quite clearly stated that fracking is incompatible with the UK's Climate included within this policy and also within other specific policies in Change commitments. the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). Specifically, this policy makes no reference of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paras 94-95), including the need to The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assesses the impact of the policy, plan for development in ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As not the impact of oil and gas development. The policy is considered there is no reference to the requirement to mitigate climate change to have positive effects on climate change, biodiversity, water, air, within this draft policy or within adopted Strategic Policy ENV7 (Part 1 of land and resources, and human health compared to the situation the Local Plan); the plan is inconsistent with national policy and is without the policy. unsound. The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional The policy explanation for Policy 50 has been formed under the proviso of oil and gas extraction. giving “great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction; including to the economy” (para 144 - NPPF). Such reference should however also be Applicants will need to provide evidence as part of any application, made within the context of the wider aims of sustainable development – to show that proposals will not result in an increased risk of which include social and environmental sustainability; the latter which subsidence. The Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board aims to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate will be a consultee in relevant areas. Impacts on health and safety change. In considering the economic sustainable development objectives and therefore on gas storage, will be considered by the Health and ahead of social and environmental, the ability of the policy to deliver Safety Executive. sustainable development (re para 182 – NPPF) is diminished. A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive I am also concerned that the Sustainability Appraisal assumes that Policy emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be DM50 (which addresses unconventional hydrocarbon extraction) will lead responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The to ‘positive effects’ in terms of its ability to tackle issues linked to: climate Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. change; biodiversity; water; air; land and resources; human health. This is The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and not supported by evidence. reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. I am also concerned that the plan fails to recognise the precautionary DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response approach, in particular to the development of unconventional Impacts on health and safety or contamination would be dealt with hydrocarbons, given that only one well has been test-fracked in the UK, by the Environment Agency or Health and Safety Executive. The and that led to a moratorium. As there is little evidence from the UK itself, planning system should not duplicate these controls. The view of the planning authority has either to rely on evidence from other countries the statutory bodies will be taken into account when a decision is such as the US and Australia, or to acknowledge that there is a great deal made on the application. of uncertainty present in the decision-making processes around unconventional oil and gas, and to reword its policy accordingly in line Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones with screening all such developments for Environmental Impact may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, Assessment (EIA). based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and In particular, it states "The proposals will not result in an increase in risk of occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in subsidence" This should automatically rule out drilling or even seismic certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard surveys anywhere within a large radius of Northwich, Winsford, or the exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential whole of Mid Cheshire where salt mining has been carried out. There is use of above ground separation distances. also no mention of how damage from earthquakes will be prevented from Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new rupturing the gas storage caverns in the Holford Brine Fields. Independent development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic expert opinion states that fracking anywhere near this area should not be attempted as "No one can predict what will happen" can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the I object to Policy DM50 for the following reasons: development is brought into use.

- The policy fails to take account of the need to tackle the causes of The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise, which climate change in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions covers this issue in sufficient detail and can be assessed. Further caused by fossil fuels; criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD. - The policy fails to take account of public health concerns, including concerns over the production of waste and possible impacts for The policy already includes criteria relating to minimising impacts groundwater and biodiversity; on the landscape. Impact of proposals on landscape is also covered by policy GBC 5 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and policies STRAT 9 - The policy fails to implement a minimum distance requirement from DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response residential development; and ENV 2 in the Local Plan (Part One).

- The policy fails to ensure that the planning impacts identified by affected local communities have been fully addressed (including highway safety linked to HGV vehicle movements, noise and landscape)

In my view, policy DM50 as currently drafted does not ensure that the plan meets the test of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development and is therefore unsound. 1562 Felsham Planning and Development is instructed to submit a The word ‘only’ has been removed from the second and third representation to the Local Plan consultation on behalf of INEOS paragraphs to make them more positive statements. Upstream Ltd. This representation deals with policies covering unconventional gas in the Local Plan The policy sets out criteria relating to oil and gas developments. The majority of these criteria will be retained, unless covered by We have concerns about this draft policy DM50 Oil and Gas Development. other statutory bodies. Decisions on relevant planning applications Our comments are in red below: will take account of this policy and other relevant planning policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and Local Plan (Part Two). Proposals for the production of hydrocarbons will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that the further works and surface The policy is positively worded as it supports development, subject facilities required to manage the output from the well(s) including facilities to certain criteria being met. for the utilisation of energy, where relevant, accord with plan policies The Local Plan (Part One) and (Part Two) will replace the existing Cheshire Replacement Minerals Local Plan. A separate, new this is a negative statement that is not in line with Government policy. The Minerals Local Plan will not be prepared. overall policy approach should be to provide a presumption in favour of development and to then identify a series of considerations or criteria The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan Examination is still relevant to the particular proposal and to assess that proposal against ongoing and has not yet been adopted. The suggested policy is not bespoke criteria. Such criteria will usually be contained in the wider considered to be sufficiently detailed to cover all issues relating to policies of the local plan. oil and gas development.

 Proposals for oil and gas development (exploration, appraisal, DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response production) will only be supported where: Part of the suggested supporting text has been added to the policy explanation. The policy then lists a series of 18 criteria, each of which must be complied with. This approach is too prescriptive. The approach should be to identify the factors relevant to the assessment of a particular proposal; to identify the relevant local plan policies dealing with these matters; and to assess the proposal against these policies.

Overall, the policy is very prescriptive and is negatively worded, containing a presumption against development and requiring submission of considerable detailed information. We believe that this is unnecessary given that it is applying a direction about how planning policy will deal with onshore hydrocarbons in advance of a minerals plan being prepared and the fact that there is an existing, although dated, minerals plan covering Cheshire.

Question 91 asks whether we agree with the policy approach. We are firmly of the view that there should be an oil and gas policy but our advice is to make revise the policy to adopt a more positively worded approach, in line with NPPF.

Support for our positive approach is provided by the recently published Nottinghamshire Minerals Plan. Its relevant policy is simple and positively worded and recognises that the policy is supported by other policies in the Local Plan, which provide the details for necessary assessment of impacts. Using this as a base, we wish to suggest the following wording:

POLICY DM50 Oil and Gas Development DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Exploration

1. Proposals for hydrocarbon exploration will be supported provided they do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Appraisal

2. Where hydrocarbons are discovered, proposals to appraise, drill and test the resource will be permitted provided that they are consistent with an overall scheme for the appraisal and delineation of the resource and do not give rise to any unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

Extraction

3. Proposals for the extraction of hydrocarbons will be supported provided they are consistent with an overall scheme for enabling the full development of the resource and do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity.

4. Where proposals for hydrocarbon development coincide with areas containing other underground mineral resources evidence must be provided to demonstrate that their potential for future exploitation will not be unreasonably affected.

Restoration

5. All applications for hydrocarbon development will be accompanied with details of how the site will be restored once the development is no longer DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response required.

This suggested policy contains all the elements of the proposed Cheshire West and Chester policy but is positively worded. It notes that the main concerns are with the environment and residential amenity but as there are other policies dealing with such impacts, each containing assessment criteria, the oil and gas development policy of the plan does not need to list these considerations in its policy. The supporting text should provide background and justification, which links to the National Planning Policy Framework and other Government policies, and the PEDLs are mapped and safeguarded. We suggest the following wording for that supporting text

The UK Government’s energy policies seek to encourage the use of natural resources indigenous to the UK as part of achieving self-sufficiency in energy production and increasing security of energy and gas supplies. On- shore hydrocarbon extraction is comprehensively regulated. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has awarded a Petroleum, Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL) for an area within the Council’s area.

Onshore hydrocarbons provide an opportunity to extract a nationally important natural energy resource without the environmental impact normally associated with minerals extraction.

The extraction of CBM and shale gas will be incremental and involve more than one exploration and production site. Due to advanced drilling techniques, these sites can be up to 1km apart.

Exploration and development rights granted through a PEDL create land DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response use rights across the licence area, subject to obtaining necessary site specific consents. Safeguarding is important because rights create a land use consideration that may be a material factor in assessing other land use proposals in the area. It is a potential land use consideration that others using the planning service need to take into account.

The PEDL licence does not create automatic development rights and the effects may not apply equally across the PEDL area. Due to the nature of the resource and the location, it is important that it is safeguarded where it is present. It is important that the extent of the PEDL is identified in the Plan and its consequences explained. 1567 Peel Gas & Oil works in partnership with onshore gas and oil operators to Part of the suggested supporting text has been added to the policy identify and deliver land, consents and construction of oil and gas explanation. infrastructure to facilitate the establishment of a major potential industry. The Oil and Gas policy will be moved to the Minerals section of the Peel are generally supportive of the approach taken in the draft local plan, Local Plan (Part Two). but feel that some changes would benefit the clarity of the document for interested parties and better link the document to the guidance in the The word ‘only’ has been removed from the second and third National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Policy Guidance paragraphs to make them more positive statements. (NPPG). This would ensure that the key soundness tests of ensuring consistency with national policy is achieved, and should also make it a Minerals, can only be worked where they naturally occur, but there more effective document. will be some flexibility in the location of above ground works, for example storage areas and link roads, so these should be directed Policy DM50: Oil and Gas Development to the least environmentally sensitive location, where possible.

Alignment with National Policy and Guidance The policy currently states that noise should be controlled, mitigated or removed so that proposed levels are acceptable and There are aspects of Policy DM50 that do not comply with guidance in the will not have a significant detrimental impact on residential NPPF or NPPG, which require to be addressed to ensure the key amenity. This does not set specific noise levels and could allow soundness tests of ensuring consistency with national policy is some short term noisy activity as long as it is avoided or mitigated DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response achieved. These aspects of Policy DM50 are considered below: where possible and resulting levels are acceptable. Further criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Government Commitment Two) and within the SPD.

The NPPG makes it clear[1] that there is a pressing need to establish Bullet point 8 referring to proposals being appropriately screened whether or not there are sufficient recoverable quantities of from public view has been deleted as it is covered in bullet point 3. unconventional hydrocarbons for full scale production. This message is based on the wider energy policy of the UK[2] which, as a whole, seeks to The other references to visual amenity will be retained, as they secure a transition to a lower carbon future. This transition recognises refer to screening and impact of well pads, plant, buildings and that there needs to be a mix of energy sources with an increasing reliance other structures. Reference to painting of structures has also been on renewables. However, it also recognises that gas, as a demand retained. However, the policy has been split up into separate responsive and relatively clean fossil fuel, is an important step away from sections for the exploration, appraisal and production phases and coal, and a necessary part of the supply mix to reduce our carbon the potentially short-term nature of some of the stages has been footprint overall. taken into account within the criteria.

This overall policy message should be made clearer within the policy and Additional text has been added to state that lighting should allow go beyond what is mentioned in paragraph 10.287 of the policy safe operation of activities on site. explanation. Additional text has been added to the explanation to state that Terminology where land is allocated or safeguarded for a particular use, but the land is also covered by a PEDL licence, use for oil or gas extraction The Government has highlighted that hydrocarbon extraction is a may still be acceptable as long as the allocation or safeguarding is necessary part of the energy supply mix, and therefore it is not not affected and the proposal complies with the criteria within appropriate for Policy DM50 to be considered as an “alternative energy Policy DM50 and other development plan policies. supply”. We therefore consider that it should be contained under the “Minerals supply and safeguarding” section of the Local Plan Part Text relating to restoration has been amended to state that an Two. Furthermore, to ensure the policy is compliant with the terminology appropriate level of detail should be provided. used in the NPPF and NPPG[3], we consider that the policy should be renamed to “DM50: Conventional and Unconventional Hydrocarbons” Reference to proposals for hydraulic fracturing only being rather than ‘oil and gas development’. There are some references permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater protection DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response throughout the wording in the policy and explanation text to ‘shale’: not areas has been removed from the policy as the policy should not all unconventional hydrocarbons come from shale; coal, for example, is repeat legislation, but reference to the relevant legislation will be also a relevant source (although there are many others). References to included in the explanation. ‘shale’ should therefore be deleted throughout, and ‘oil and gas’ replaced with ‘hydrocarbons’. Reference to the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing regulations within the explanation will be retained. Presumption in favour of sustainable development and positively worded policies Reference to the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been changed to the Department for Business, Energy and At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable Industrial Strategy. development, and is the golden thread running through plan-making and decision taking[4]. The NPPF emphasises that policies should be positively Reference to PEDL blocks has been updated to show the position as worded and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable at March 2017. development[5]. The NPPF starts from a positive position and recognises that minerals are essential to sustainable economic growth and quality of It is not considered necessary to show existing hydrocarbon sites on life, and that there should be a sufficient supply to meet the countries the proposals map, as this will change over time. needs[6].

Currently Policy DM50 does not reflect this policy guidance: it starts from an essentially negative position of “…will only be supported where…”. In accordance with the above guidance in the NPPF, the policy should be reframed to be more positive, for example “Hydrocarbon development will be supported, provided that…”.

The NPPF also recognises that when setting out policies, environmental criteria should be established so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health (including noise, dust, visual intrusion, traffic, land stability, settlement and subsidence, groundwater and contamination migration)[7]. Some of the criteria currently proposed in DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Policy DM50 do not comply with this policy guidance, and should be reframed to take account of the following:

 Bullet point 1 of the Policy DM50 is overly restrictive: Minerals, including hydrocarbons, can only be worked where they naturally occur[8]. Therefore, location options for the economically viable extraction of minerals may already be limited. Policies therefore should reflect the need to economically recover hydrocarbons, whilst also selecting the least environmentally sensitive locations.  The NPPF specifically recognises that, for minerals operations, some short term noisy activity which would otherwise be unacceptable may be unavoidable and that this should be reflected in setting noise limits[9].  Reference to visual amenity is repeated three times at bullet points 3, 8 and 10, which could be combined. Some hydrocarbon operations may have a temporary adverse visual impact (for example during the relatively short term exploration and appraisal stages) which it is not possible to fully mitigate and that this may be unavoidable.  Lighting needs to be adequate to allow safe operation of activities on site, whilst ensuring no significant effect on amenity, wildlife or highway safety.  The criterion which refers the wellpads, plant (etc.) being painted to assimilate into surroundings may be appropriate for the production stage, but it is an unrealistic expectation for a contractor to re-paint a drilling rig to match the backdrop of a site, particularly given the limited duration of such works.  In addition, it would be helpful if the supporting text could explain that where sites are allocated / safeguarded for a particular use, such as employment land, but where this land is also a PEDL DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response licence area, then use for hydrocarbon exploration or extraction may still be acceptable, provided that compliance with the criteria within Policy DM50 and other development plan policies can be demonstrated. At present, the policy approach does not allow for such a situation.

Criteria based policies for each phase of hydrocarbon extraction

The NPPF[10] and NPPG[11] require a criteria based policy which clearly distinguishes between each of the exploration, appraisal and production phases of hydrocarbon extraction. It also requires that these policies should set clear guidance and criteria for the location and assessment of hydrocarbon extraction. Currently Policy DM50 refers to exploration, then production (missing appraisal) and only then brings in generic criteria for all phases in the bullet list. The policy is not clear what considerations apply at which stage, and as the activities involved at each stage are different, further guidance on the minimum information required to support applications at each stage is required. We suggest the policy is restructured broadly along the lines set out below:

All phases:

 Ground and surface water protection measures, including any advance monitoring  Flood risk  Water supply  Process / flowback / formation water management measures  Other waste or arisings management measures  Geology, land stability and contamination  Noise DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Emissions to Air, including appropriate control of fugitive emissions  Landscape and visual effects  Traffic and transportation, including vehicle routing  Heritage  Ecology/ Biodiversity  Seismic risk and monitoring proposals  Socio-economic effects  Site remediation, restoration and intended after uses  Outline construction, traffic and environmental management plans

Exploration Phase:

 Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints  Activities and investigations to be undertaken during exploration  Gas management proposals, including the need for any flaring  Any proposed lateral drilling or hydraulic fracturing  Any cumulative effects with other appraisal or exploration works in the gas field

Appraisal Phase:

 Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints  Gas management proposals, including the need for any flaring and the capturing / storage / export of produced gas.  Any proposed lateral drilling and hydraulic fracturing  Any cumulative effects with other appraisal or exploration works DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response in the gas field

Production Phase:

 Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints  Area wide development proposals, including wellbore locations, and any lateral drilling and fracturing operations  Cumulative effects  Any onsite infrastructure required for the collection, processing and compression of gas  Any onsite electricity generation proposals  Gas transport proposals or intentions

Restoration and Aftercare

The NPPG is clear that the level of detail required on restoration depends on the circumstances of each specific site, and only stipulates that it must be sufficient to clearly demonstrate that the scheme is practically achievable[12]. We consider that an outline of the restoration scheme, including indicative working methods and a strategy which is likely to create an appropriate after use, would be a reasonable minimum requirement, which can then be linked to a condition which requires detailed proposals to be agreed once the relevant phase or operations is drawing to a close; Policies DM50 and DM58 should reflect this.

Other Amendments

The following inconsistencies required to be addressed as follows: DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Paragraph 3 in Policy DM50 reiterates the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Area) Regulations 2016 requirement for hydraulic fracturing to only take place below 1,200 metres in groundwater source protection zone 1. Planning policy does not need to reiterate these regulations particularly when this is again repeated in the explanation section of the policy; therefore, this paragraph should be removed from the policy wording.  Paragraph 10.289 refers to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). DECC has now been abolished and became part of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in July 2016. The policy needs to be updated to reflect this.  Paragraph 10.292 refers to 12 blocks being licensed as at May 2016; however, this is incorrect and should be amended to May 2015.  The Council has included PEDL Areas on their proposals map in accordance with the requirements of the NPPG[13]. There may also be merit in showing existing hydrocarbon sites on the proposals map.

In reviewing the information detailed above, I trust that you will take our comments into account and amend the policies related to conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon extraction to better align with the guidance contained within the NPPG.

[1] Paragraph: 091 NPPG Reference ID: 27-091-20140306 [2] Annual Energy Statement 2014 [3] Paragraph 091 Reference ID: 27-091-20140306 [4] Paragraph 14 of the NPPF [5] Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 12-011-20140306 [6] Paragraph 142 of the NPPF DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response [7] Paragraph 143 of the NPPF [8] Paragraph 142 of the NPPF [9] Paragraph 143 of the NPPF [10] Paragraph 147 of the NPPF [11] Paragraph: 106 Reference ID: 27-106-20140306 [12] Paragraph 040 Ref ID: 27-040-20140306 [13] Paragraph 106 Ref ID: 27-106-20140306 1615 Bullet point suggested amendments: The word ‘unavoidable’ has been removed from bullet points 4 and 5. Use of term ‘unavoidable’ should be amended or avoided as it is redundant and open to dispute/interpretation (points 4 and 5). A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive “Fugitive emissions” should be defined as referring to emissions at any emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be point in the production, transport and use of the product ( point 13). responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. Please consider adding the following highly salient points: The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. Required carbon capture to be assessed and exploited Carbon capture and storage technology is not sufficiently developed at this time to make it economically viable. Carbon Require adequate baseline information and monitoring to enable capture and storage is not a Government requirement and a policy effective assesment of effects on public health and the environment, with requirement for evidence of the consideration and feasibility of all data being made available to the public for independent review carbon capture could add unnecessarily to costs for applicants.

The developer be required to pay CWAC to undertake tests of ground , Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment water and air within the agreed radius of each each drill point and laterals will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore at agreed and reasonable (eg every 3 months) intervals, the results of cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline which will be made public for peer review conditions and on-going monitoring.

Noise levels of drilling, fracturing , generators, traffic etc need to be kept The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise, which DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response to a low level relevant to the surrounding area covers this issue in sufficient detail and can be assessed. The SPD includes additional detail relating to noise. Further criteria relating Storage of water, produced materials etc should also be screened to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) adequately for the immediate area. and within the SPD.

Pipelines need to be below ground level and safety checks regularly The policy already includes a criterion relating to screening of the completed, all information to be made public and open to peer review, proposal. including gas and oil pressures along the pipework An additional criterion has been added to require that above ground structures are minimised, by using pipelines where feasible and economically viable. It would not be possible to require all pipelines to be located underground as this would depend upon the nature of the area and existing pipeline provision. The SPD identifies that sinking facilities below ground should be utilised where necessary and sites should be located where they can feed into an existing long distance pipeline where possible.

The Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for safety checks of pipelines and monitoring of gas and oil pressures. 1746 DM50 needs to include : Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore  All applications must provide evidence that all required base-line cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline assessments have been obtained prior to the further conditions and on-going monitoring. consideration of any application. These should include the impact on wildlife and animals(cattle/horses/sheep etc) Access conditions for the Environment Agency and Health and  All applications need to confirm the agreed access conditions for Safety Executive will need to be agreed with those bodies. Regulators to inspect works and facilities during exploration appraisal, production and post-production. The Health and Safety Executive are responsible for assessing well  That agreement has been reached for these regulatory design and monitoring well integrity. inspections to include checks for deterioration and casing failure The appropriateness of a bond will depend on the proposal. The DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response during and after production. National Planning Policy Framework states that bonds or other  Applicants must obtain and produce to the Minerals Authority a financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be Bond or similar to cover any costs incurred that require remedial sought in exceptional circumstances, as such it is not possible to action either during or post production and that this Bond require bonds through the policy. remains effective even if the Applicant ceases to exist as an entity. (this to avoid the Minerals Authority having to meet the The role of other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and cost of any remedial actions and mitigate aliability in these costs). reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.  Whilst it may be obvious, it should be made clear to any Applicant that the Environment Agency and the HSE have a regulatory duty Minerals planning authorities should assume that other statutory to oversee all the operational aspects of unconventional oil and regimes operate effectively and should not need to carry out their gas exploration and that the Applicant must cooperate fully with own assessment. these bodies.  It should be made clear to any Applicant that the Mineral The Environment Agency are responsible for controlling and Planning Authority (CWaC) holds a duty of care and an oversight managing any naturally occurring radioactive materials and this role for all applications not simply an assumption of operational does not need to be referred to in the policy. effectiveness given by other agencies and as such may require The policy should not repeat the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing access to works, facilities and operational records. Regulations and the protected areas do not need to be referred to  Specific reference should be made as to how the Applicant would in the Local Plan, as Local Plans should not repeat legislation. treat and manage and naturally occurring radioactive materials and how any costs incurred by the Environment Agency in this It is not appropriate to set more detailed requirements on the form regard are met. of community or site liaison as this will depend on the proposal and  The Applicant must set out in any application the different the requirements of local residents. consent regimes that must be informed and that evidence must be provided that confirm such consents have been obtained. The Environment Agency are responsible for protection of water  All ‘protected areas’ within the Cheshire West and Chester quality, prevention of water pollution and treatment and disposal boundary should be detailed within the Local Plan (Part Two). of mining waste. The policy cannot duplicate the controls of  Site Liaison Committees should be established prior to any statutory bodies. planning consent is given and the cost of these must be borne by the Applicant. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new  The protection and maintenance of aquifers or other development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response underground water sources needs to be incorporated into the can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing, Policy. or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can  Consideration needs to be made of waste management including be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the product of drilling such as rock and mud. development is brought into use.  Consideration needs to be made of Flowback water including proper containment Reference to control, mitigation and removal of odour has been  Consideration needs to be made of Traffic Management including added to the policy. plant and machinery and include a traffic impact assessment.  Consideration needs to be made of Odour. Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones  Consideration needs to be made of the proximity of buildings and may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, businesses such as; Residential areas, schools, hospitals, high-tech based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required industries, farms, nurseries and glasshouses, food retailers, between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and retirement homes, food processing companies, light or heavy occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in industry. certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard  The need to meet Carbon Emission Targets exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential  Ensure that the Applicant has complied with UKOOG standards for use of above ground separation distances. community engagement and evidence this to be submitted with applications. The requirement to reduce and mitigate climate change is covered  The need to undertake full environmental impact assessments for specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and all phases as set out by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact The UKOOG community engagement standards are voluntary and Assessment) Regulations 2011. cannot be required through policy.  Compliance with all statutory requirements including o section 199 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to obtain all The requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment is set out in required environmental permits. legislation and depends upon the nature of the proposal. o Compliance with Borehole Sites and Operation Regulations 1995 to notify HSE at least 21 days prior to The policy should not repeat legislative requirements. drilling. o Compliance with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and and associated regulations. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response o Compliance with the Mining Act 1926 as amended by the reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. Science and Technology Act 1965 to inform the Natural Science Research Council of intent to sink boreholes. The document will be prepared in light of current legislation and o Compliance with requirement to inform key regulatory Government policy and it is not necessary to add the words ‘at bodies (OGA, EA, HSE and BGS). present’. o Compliance with requirement to hold consent to drill from Oil and Gas Authority. The SPD is currently in the process of being adopted.

EXPLANATORY NOTES; The explanatory note at paragraph 10.287 should The policy reflects current Government policy relating to oil and gas be extended to include the words ‘at present’ after the words ‘Central extraction. Government’. The SPD referred to a paragraph 10.293 must be introduced without delay to provide greater detail to the Local Plan (Part Two) and consideration be given to introducing the concept of a ‘precautionary principle’ to applications relating to the unconventional extraction of oil and gas. 1695 In addition to the above, bearing in mind there is very little information Planning guidance states that separation distances / buffer zones on Shale extraction in the UK at present, the Council should consider may be appropriate in specific circumstances where it is clear that, whether it would be more appropriate if extraction should either not be based on site specific assessments a certain distance is required allowed within an exclusion zone or subject to deeper or wider extraction between the boundary of the minerals extraction area and restrictions in certain specifically designated areas e.g. Ground source occupied residential properties. However, as this would only be in protection Zones 1-4, geological fault lines, salt mine caverns, brine certain circumstances, it is not possible to refer to a standard subsidence compensation district, residential settlement boundaries, HS2 exclusion zone within the policy. The SPD refers to the potential proposed route, underground gas storage facilities and any other area use of above ground separation distances. where there are existing environmental or subsidence issues for which a cumulative impact would need to be considered. Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore The Council should also insist on water, air & seismic monitoring stations cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline being established near any proposed extraction sites, 12 months before conditions and on-going monitoring. development begins, to establish base line levels. 1796 No. In the statement “ The cumulative impact on local communities and The criterion relating to cumulative impacts has been retained. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the environment with existing or proposed development of a similar kind Additional information relating to the assessment of cumulative in the same or adjoining areas is considered acceptable” it needs to be impacts is provided within the SPD. defined who this is acceptable to. This should be the local community. 1884 Please see additional submission from Cllrs A Dawson and L Riley. Protection of human health and the environment, in terms of pollution, emissions and emergency preparedness – are dealt with Strongly disagree with the policy outline. The SPD that is due out to by the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency. The consultation in the near future collates many planning policies that exist Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. with local and national regulatory frameworks to form a guide to The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and developers. reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.

This will not materially add to DM50 which remains inadequate and fails Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment to address the fundamental assurances that CWAC residents require. will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore Additions to DM50 have been tabled throughout the Plan process to cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline include: conditions and on-going monitoring. An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be submitted as part of a planning Openness and transparency throughout by the developer: eg open data application. If so, this will include information about water and as a condition for permission to explore; details of what it takes to chemical use, environmental safeguards and aftercare. mobilise and operate a site; key data, biodiversity and environmental safety data, before, during and after the development The policy explanation refers to the need for site liaison Good neighbour policy and arrangements required of the committees. The SPD provides additional information about developer: Commitment to work with communities; to be open and community liaison. The policy cannot require provision of funding transparent with them; Public forums for concerns to be raised and for communities to obtain independent advice. responded to readily – at all stages ;Provision of funding so communities Health and safety will be dealt with by the Health and Safety can obtain independent advice; Provision of funding so that communities Executive. The planning system should not duplicate these can secure independent monitoring controls. The view of the statutory bodies will be taken into Full safety case and detailed plans for all stages of the proposed account when a decision is made on the application. development, exploration, exploitation and aftercare Emergency plans, preparedness and resources ; based on CoMAH The Community Benefit Fund is an offer from UKOOG members for regulations £100,000 at each well site and 1% of revenues. The Shale Wealth Insurance and compensation arrangements to detail how communities DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response and the environment could be restored in the event of an Fund is up to 10% of tax revenues arising from shale gas production incident Community benefits to identify up front what is proposed and to be used for the benefit of local communities. Both of these the arrangements for discussions, negotiations, management of funds, potential payments are outside the planning process and levels recipients etc cannot be specified in the Local Plan policy. Consultation and local democracy with commitment to holding a local poll (or referendum) or support for a parish poll or some other equally The planning application process provides an opportunity for effective method of demonstrating local support for the proposed interested parties and local people to submit comments and arrangements demonstrate whether they support the proposal. The Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) sets out the requirements for consultation with local communities. The SCI also encourages developers involved in ‘significant’ planning applications to carry out independent public consultations prior to the submission of schemes, providing the community with an early opportunity to become involved in proposals for their area. This could take the form of public exhibitions, meetings workshops or media coverage etc. Results from any public consultation exercise undertaken by the applicant should form part of the application. It would be difficult to prescribe in policy (or the SCI) what form local consultation should take, when the most effective methods will depend on the type and location of individual proposals on a case- by-case basis. 1885 NO - I do not agree with this approach. I have a number of issues with it. The policy explanation states that exploration is a short-term activity, typically between six months and two years. It is not Comments on the text of your proposal: considered necessary to set a maximum time period within the policy as this will depend upon the specific proposal, however the 'Proposals for exploration of hydrocarbons will only be permitted if policy already states that proposals for exploration of hydrocarbons exploration is for an agreed, temporary length of time'- I feel this is too will only be permitted if exploration is for an agreed, temporary vague. What does ‘temporary mean? Surely the definition is simply length of time. something that is not permanent which means the exploration could go on for as long as they want, so long as they give an eventual end date. The Council and other statutory bodies will assess whether DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response This is not acceptable. proposed noise and light levels are acceptable. . Further criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Comments regarding ‘acceptable’ limits connected to noise and light Two) and within the SPD. seem vague – who deems what is acceptable? Using the site in Duttons Lane as an example it is impossible that noise and light at even minimal A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation levels would not have had a detrimental impact on the nearest properties of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive and they were very close to the site. emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The The point relating to ‘fugitive emissions’ should specify that this should Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. apply to emissions at any point in the process: during production, The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and transportation and subsequent usage. reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.

Omissions in your proposal that need to be addressed: Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore There does not seem to be any reference to baseline assessments of cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline earth, water and air prior to exploration processes starting. This should be conditions and on-going monitoring. a requirement – completed by an independent company but paid for by The policy reflects current Government policy and support for oil the gas company. The results of such testing should be made available to and gas extraction. CWAC residents. The requirement to reduce and mitigate climate change is covered Similarly, future regular testing at sites should be included as a specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and requirement, the results of which should again be made available to proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two). CWAC residents.

Overall comments on this proposal:

I do not agree with that the process should take place in the CWAC area at all as ‘UN Environment Program1’ states:

“Fracking may result in unavoidable environmental impacts even if DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response unconventional gas is extracted properly and more so if done inadequately. Furthermore, increased extraction and use of unconventional gas is likely to be detrimental to efforts to curb climate change”. 1924 Disagree with any fracking development at all in Cheshire The policy reflects current Government policy and support for oil West. Legislative safety measures are just not enough and have been and gas extraction. proven to fail on many occasions. Impacts on health and safety would be dealt with by the Health and Safety Executive. The planning system should not duplicate these controls. The view of the statutory bodies will be taken into account when a decision is made on the application. 1947 I do not agree with DM 50 Hydrocarbons and UGO – Question 91. The word ‘unavoidable’ has been removed from bullet point 4 and 5. I would suggest the following alterations; A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation  Omit words ‘unavoidable’ as it is redundant and open to of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive dispute/interpretation (points 4 and 5). emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be  Bullet Point 13 “fugitive emissions” should be defined as referring responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The to emissions at any point in the production, transport and use of Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. the product. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and  Add point required carbon capture to be assessed and exploited reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.  Add point requiring adequate baseline information and monitoring to enable effective assessment of effects on public Carbon capture and storage technology is not sufficiently health and the environment, with all data being made available to developed at this time to make it economically viable. Carbon the public for independent review capture and storage is not a Government requirement and a policy  Add point that the developer be required to pay CWAC to requirement for evidence of the consideration and feasibility of undertake tests of ground , water and air within the agreed radius carbon capture could add unnecessarily to costs for applicants. of each drill point and laterals at agreed and reasonable (eg every Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment 3 months) intervals, the results of which will be made public for will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore peer review DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Noise levels of drilling, fracturing , generators, traffic etc need to cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline be kept to a low level relevant to the surrounding area conditions and on-going monitoring.  Storage of water, produced materials etc should also be screened adequately for the immediate area The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise, which  Pipelines need to be below ground level and safety checks covers this issue in sufficient detail and can be assessed. . Further regularly completed, all information to be made public and open criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local to peer review, including gas and oil pressures along the pipework Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD.

The policy already includes a criterion relating to screening of the proposal.

An additional criterion has been added to require that above ground structures and facilities are minimised by using pipelines. It would not be possible to require all pipelines to be located underground as this would depend upon the nature of the area and existing pipeline provision. The SPD identifies that sinking facilities below ground should be utilised where necessary and sites should be located where they can feed into an existing long distance pipeline where possible.

The Health and Safety Executive will be responsible for safety checks of pipelines and monitoring of gas and oil pressures. 1949 No, I do not agree with this approach. There need to be alterations, and A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation the points raised below included in amendment. of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be  The reference to "fugitive emissions" should clearly refer to, and responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The be defined as, emissions during any stage of the transportation, Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. production and use of the product. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and  There must be an additional point to assess and exploit required reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. carbon capture. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  The point should be included that any developer must be obliged Carbon capture and storage technology is not sufficiently to pay CW&C to undertake tests of water, air and ground within a developed at this time to make it economically viable. Carbon specified and agreed distance at agreed intervals and this must be capture and storage is not a Government requirement and a policy made public. requirement for evidence of the consideration and feasibility of  Thorough baseline testing information, assessment and carbon capture could add unnecessarily to costs for applicants. monitoring must be conducted prior to development activity, and in so doing, the impacts on public health and environment can be Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment properly understood. All data must be made accessible to the will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore public for peer review. This point must be included. cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline  Noise levels of seismic surveying, drilling, fracturing, truck conditions and on-going monitoring. movements, must not exceed the acceptable and relevant norm of the surrounding area. This point must be included. The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise, which  As well as noise, light pollution should not exceed the 'norms' of covers this issue in sufficient detail and can be assessed. . Further the surrounding area. criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local  Words such as "unavoidable" are entirely disputable and open to Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD. debate and should not be used in a document such as this, in which clarity must be achieved. The policy already includes a criterion relating to light, which should  Storage of materials and water must be screened, and results of ensure that proposed lighting is acceptable and does not have a screening made public. detrimental impact.

The policy already includes a criterion stating that the proposal should be appropriately screened – this would include screening of storage of materials and stored water. 1953 The document clearly implies that permission will be allowed if the The policy needs to be positively worded and support development following conditions are met...etc etc (as long as it complies with relevant criteria), in order to comply with Government guidance. I disagree with that because it raises a doubt in the minds of our residents as to the thoroughness of our process. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response What is should state to be clear for everyone is that...

Permission will be refused ...unless the necessary conditions are met....

ie. Enviromental issues. ,Insurance . ,local community benefits etc etc

Some may say that it is one and the same...It is Not ....It is Not!!

We have seen from the results of the General Election here in Chester and the results in the Council Elections here in 2015 as to just how critical the wording and it's interpretation are ,with the public at large. 1980 Point 13 regarding ‘fugitive emissions’ should include clarification that A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation they also apply at all stages and at all points in the exploration, of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive production & transport and use of the product. There should be a emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be requirement for adequate baseline information including thresholds and responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The continuous monitoring to be submitted and available for general public Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. scrutiny and for independent peer review. This will develop public The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and confidence in the industry and regulatory bodies. reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy.

Most of the health and environmental monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of other statutory bodies and therefore cannot be required through the policy. The SPD refers to baseline conditions and on-going monitoring. 2001 We haven't addressed public health concerns, impacts on property prices. Impacts on health and safety would be dealt with by the Health and Safety Executive. The planning system should not duplicate these Applications will only be supported where evidence is provided that it has controls. The view of the statutory bodies will be taken into public support. Public health and stress are material planning account when a decision is made on the application. considerations and should form part of our policy. The potential impact on house prices cannot be taken into account Volatile organic compounds (diesel fumes etc) and impacts on the local DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response community during all 3 stages should be assessed, any increase is in the determination of planning applications. unacceptable. The policy already states that environmentally preferable Further email 22/9/2016 at 12:38 alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where possible. Policy DM 46 relates to parking and access and additional "Specifically, Policy DM50 (Oil and Gas) makes no reference of the text has been added to this policy to state that developments requirements of the NPPF (paras 94-95), including the need to plan for should not create any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road development in ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As there is safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by routeing controls no reference to the requirement to mitigate climate change within this or other highways improvements. draft policy or within adopted Strategic Policy ENV7 (Part 1 of the Local Plan); the plan is inconsistent with national policy and is unsound. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic The policy explanation for Policy 50 has been formed under the proviso of can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing, giving “great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction; including to the or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can economy” (para 144 - NPPF). Such reference should however also be be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the made within the context of the wider aims of sustainable development – development is brought into use. which include social and environmental sustainability; the latter which The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional aims to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate oil and gas extraction. change. In considering the economic sustainable development objectives ahead of social and environmental, the ability of the policy to deliver The requirement to reduce and mitigate climate change is covered sustainable development (re para 182 – NPPF) is diminished. specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) and when making I am also concerned that the Sustainability Appraisal assumes that Policy decisions on planning applications, the Plan should be considered DM50 (which addresses unconventional hydrocarbon extraction) will lead as a whole. to ‘positive effects’ in terms of its ability to tackle issues linked to: climate change; biodiversity; water; air; land and resources; human health. This is not supported by evidence." 2122 Given the policy includes landscape considerations, reference to the Protection of the historic environment will be covered by other historic environment should also be included. Suggested textual change: policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and Local Plan (Part Two). DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Proposals for oil and gas development (exploration, appraisal and production) will only be supported where:

 Above ground activity has been directed to the least environmentally-sensitive location.  They are sensitively located within the landscape and do not have a significant long-term detrimental impact on the landscape. This should take account of the landscape character assessment.  They do not have an unacceptable harm to the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting.  The proposal is appropriately screened from public view and would not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity….. 2155 The restrictions imposed to mitigate the adverse effects of this type of The appropriateness of screening will be assessed by Council development on communities and environment are well intentioned but officers, with guidance from relevant consultees, on a case by case many are too vague to be affective. basis. It would not be possible to set minimum standards as this would depend upon the proposal, location and surroundings. eg.bullet point 3 - The assessment of the "appropriateness" of screening measures will be subjective as to their nature and height. This is not The word ‘unavoidable’ has been removed from bullet point 4 and acceptable. A min. standard should be stated. 5.

bp 4 -The word "unavoidable" in this clause is too vague. It can be argued The Council and other statutory bodies will assess whether light that all emissions can be controlled if the appropriate measures are put in levels are acceptable. . Further criteria relating to noise are place. The word "unavoidable" should be removed. provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD. The SPD also provides further details regarding light. It would bp 5 - Same comment as bp 4 not be possible to set specific standards as this would depend upon the proposal, location and surroundings. bp 6 - How is it possible to assess what will be the "detrimental" effects of lighting before the effects materialise? Standards need to be stated A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive bp 13 - Any fugitive emissions with the potential to cause damage will be emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response due to equipment failure or human error and therefore any impact responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The cannot be assessed. No other emissions should be tolerated. Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. 2242 Our objection is made with regard to policy DM50 Oil and Gas The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional Development, on the following grounds: oil and gas extraction. Social and environmental considerations are included within this policy and also within other specific policies in - Climate change is not adequately considered given the Section the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan 19(1A) duty set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) (Part Two). (as amended by the Planning Act (2008)); The requirement to reduce and mitigate climate change is covered - Findings of the Sustainability Appraisal; specifically by other policies within the Local Plan (Part One) and proposed policies in the Local Plan (Part Two) and when making - Consideration of Alternatives; decisions on planning applications, the Plan should be considered as a whole. - Cumulative Impacts and the Precautionary Principle The Oil and Gas policy will be moved to the Minerals section of the Local Plan (Part Two). Matter 1: Climate Change Mitigation The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) assesses the impact of the policy, 1 Friends of the Earth wish to remind the planning authority of section not the impact of oil and gas development. The policy is considered 19(1A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004)1 in the to have positive effects on climate change, biodiversity, water, air, context of Local Plan formation; which puts an obligation on plan-making land and resources, and human health compared to the situation authorities ensure its development plan documents (taken as a whole) without the policy. include policies that are: The proposed alternatives will be considered for inclusion within “…designed to secure that the development and use of land in the local the SA. planning authority's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.” 2 The proposed criteria will apply to all forms of oil and gas development. To deal with each form of oil and gas development DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2 The wording of this act is also reflected in the NPPF3, which states: separately would result in repetition and confusion.

“…Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate The policy already includes criteria relating to most of these issues, and adapt to climate change [footnote 16], taking full account of flood or they are covered by other policies within the Local Plan or are risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations.” the responsibility of other statutory bodies. Venting and flaring is not covered specifically, but the criteria 3 Footnote 16 (mentioned above) within the NPPF also refers to the relating to impact on landscape, visual amenity, residential amenity objectives and provisions of the Climate Change Act (2008), including and noise would cover any potential impacts. binding targets such as: The issues raised are covered in more detail in the SPD. “…the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.” Impacts on health and safety or contamination would be dealt with by the Environment Agency or Health and Safety Executive. The 4 Friends of the Earth has sought legal interpretation of the PCPA (2004), planning system should not duplicate these controls. The view of Climate Change Act (2008) and NPPF in relation to the climate change the statutory bodies will be taken into account when a decision is duty that applies to plan-making. The advice received makes it clear that made on the application. Policy DM 22 also refers to land in formulating local plans, local planning authorities are duty bound to contamination and instability.footp produce policies that contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. This requirement links into the tests of soundness A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation referred to within the NPPF4; specifically policies that do not contribute of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive to such climate change requirements will lead to the plan being emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be considered ‘unsound’ as the plan will not be considered to be “consistent responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The with national policy”, in relation to the principles of sustainable Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. development. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. 5 Strategic policy ENV7 (from the Strategic Polices Document) – which links to policy DM50 in this consultation – discusses alternative energy supplies including renewable and low carbon proposals. As a precursor, renewable energy and hydrocarbon developments should not be included in the same policy remit, with the NPPF stating that planning should DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and support the delivery of renewable energy. The same policy also however fails to mention climate change mitigation linked to minerals, with ENV7 stating:

“Proposals to exploit the borough’s alternative hydrocarbon resources will be supported in accordance with the above criteria and all other policies within the Local Plan” 5

6 Neither the strategic or detailed policies mention climate change mitigation with mineral extraction. If it was the local authority’s approach to include such detail within the Detailed Policies at the time of the adoption of Part One of the plan, then policy DM50 has failed to achieve this end. The policy explanation cites the NPPF (albeit incorrectly6) where minerals authorities are encouraged to ‘give great weight to the benefits of minerals extraction; including to the economy’. We would however suggest that such a reference should be made within the context of the wider aims of sustainable development – which includes social and environmental sustainability; the latter which aims to contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. In failing to incorporate the requirements put on it by the above mentioned legislation, DM50 has not considered climate change mitigation as part of minerals extraction and is not therefore consistent with national policy7.

7 We would also like to highlight in this context the requirements the Infrastructure Act8 put on the Secretary of State to seek objective advice from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) on the UK’s ability to meet the carbon account target for 2050. The CCC’s report from earlier this year9 concluded that the exploitation of shale gas would not be compatible with UK carbon budgets, or the 2050 commitment to reduce emissions by at least 80% unless 3 crucial tests are met, and also relies DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response upon Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) a programme which is currently in abeyance.10 Despite the Department for Energy and Climate Change’s (DECC) response that these tests can be met, Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre – the UK's leading academic climate change research organisation – maintains that the UK’s ability to be able to comply with its climate commitments is heavily restricted and that investments in shale would be better directed towards zero carbon technologies;

“Given the investment in infrastructure required to exploit these resources there is the danger of locking the UK into years of shale gas use, leaving unproven carbon capture and storage, as the only option for lower carbon electricity. Consequently, this investment would be better made in real zero-carbon technologies that would provide more effective long-term options for decarbonising electricity.” 11

8 We therefore ask the authority to carefully consider the inherent policy conflict surrounding unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, especially when forming a policy mechanism that equally aims to mitigate climate change. Currently, policy DM50 provides no mention of the duties imposed on it by the PCPA (2004), the Climate Change Act (2008) and those aims and objectives embedded with the NPPF, neither how decisions for unconventional hydrocarbons granted on the basis of such a policy will be compliant in this regard.

9 In contrast, the approach taken by the Lancashire County Council in its Minerals and Waste Plan embraces the aim of climate change reduction within its adopted policy framework. Lancashire Policy DM2 is explicit in terms of new minerals developments being supported where they can contribute towards a reduction in carbon emissions: DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response “…developments will be supported for minerals or waste developments where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mineral and waste planning authority, by the provision of appropriate information, that the proposals will, where appropriate, make a positive contribution to the: [from set of bullets] Reduction of carbon emissions12

10 We consider that it is imperative Cheshire West and Cheshire Council (CWAC) adopt a similar commitment for reductions in carbon emissions linked to Policy DM50 going forward, especially in the absence of any secure reference to this within the existing local policy framework.

Matter 2: Findings of the Sustainability Appraisal

11 Having looked at the findings of council’s Sustainability Appraisal13, page 268 suggests that policy DM50 would deliver a range of positive outcomes linked to an assessment of the potential for significant effects. In this vein, the SA considers that Policy DM50 would introduce ‘positive effects’ linked to climate change; biodiversity; water; air; land and resources; human health. We cannot see how a reasonable assessment of a planning policy which is supportive of fossil fuel development, a development which in this case has a particular associated uncertainty around methane leakage14, can on a scientific basis have a ‘positive effect’ on climate change mitigation15. Nor do we see any evidence that the extraction process, with its noise, transport, waste generation, and chemical uses can have a ‘positive effect’ on biodiversity, water16, air17, land18 and human health19.

12 In addition, the SA states the policy would introduce ‘very positive effects’ on cultural heritage and landscape. In our experience those local communities affected by fracking applications and their respective DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response planning committees have cited landscape impact as a very real concern; with this being cited a principal reason for refusal for an application at Preston New Road, Lancashire20 (final response from the Planning Inspectorate notwithstanding). In our view, CWAC is failing to acknowledge real community concern about landscape impact, with the “very positive effects” linked to landscape cited in the SA seeming almost inappropriate in the context of unconventional hydrocarbon extraction developments.

13 The SA’s findings for Policy DM50, also considers the potential effects on ‘Water’ as ‘positive’. In coming to this conclusion, the appraisal column states:

“The policy explicitly requires consideration for water-based impacts, ensuring proposals do not have a detrimental impact on flow, quality or quantity of surface or groundwater.”

14 We would question how the authority envisages enforcing Policy DM50 would lead to ‘positive outcomes’ to water, especially when the British Geological Survey, one of the UK's established providers of objective and authoritative geoscientific data, states that the tools by which such effects can be measured are “may not be adequate”.21 We are of the view that the point of the SA exercise relevant to Policy DM50 is to assess likely significant effects for Oil and Gas (which includes hydraulic fracturing) based on the most up to date and objective information available in the scientific and geological arena.

15 In our view, a review of the available evidence would result in the assessment for categories of water, air, climate change and energy away from the ’positive’ category, and towards the ‘negative’ or ‘very negative’ DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response categories. These categories would better represent the current situation, whereby councils have limited practical experience of potential fracking impacts - despite robust evidence provided from fracking activities in other countries - when estimating the potential for significant effects linked to a range of environmental areas.

Matter 3: Consideration of Alternatives

16 Linked to the above matter, policy wording for DM50 suggests that the council was unable to conceive of any reasonable alternative which was consistent with national policy other than the policy proposed. Page 206 of the document states that:

“A more restrictive policy relating to oil and gas developments was discounted as Local Plans which impose oil and gas policies that appear to be purely ones of restraint will be treated as silent or out of date and would be accorded little weight by the Secretary of State at appeal

(even if such a policy was approved by an Inspector at Examination, which is unlikely).22”

17 We would consider this approach incorrect, especially based on the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal for DM50. In our view, what should be done to make the plan sound would be to include kinds of reasonable alternatives which should be identified by the council with regard to the Sustainability Appraisal. Friends of the Earth suggests three broad elements which could have been considered as Reasonable Alternatives; in whole or part and which need to be considered in order to make the plan sound. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1. Reasonable Alternative Part 1: Carbon Emissions Reduction Element

18 Policy DM50 needs to be modified so as to bring in a recognition of the climate change implications of the forms of development with which it deals. This may be achievable by:

a. Incorporating the Text (or parts of it) of paragraphs 93 and 94 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Such an approach was endorsed by the Planning Inspector in his recommendations for the Kent Minerals and Waste Plan: “it being demonstrated that greenhouse gases associated with fugitive emissions will not lead to unacceptable leves”23

b. Incorporating within the criteria a reference to the ‘reduction of carbon emissions’. A similar approach was undertaken by Lancashire Council in its minerals and waste plan – see (para 9 above).

2. Reasonable Alternative Part 2: Location Specific Criteria

19 The council must clarify adverse impacts and locations for the exploration of unconventional oil and gas. Fracking in particular should be split off because:

- It potentially has a higher risk of well failure; - The process uses much more water than conventional extraction; - Impacts for groundwater are not known; - There are issues linked to seismicity; - It has greater transport impacts for the transport for treatment of waste water; - Involves 24-hour drilling such that it has greater noise impacts for local communities; and DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response - Leads to significant waste impacts

20 The Infrastructure Act 2015 has recognised the need to protect groundwater source protection zones, as well as ‘other protected areas’24; although Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) are excluded from the list (despite other statutory protections that exist for SSSI designations25). It is also clear that as there are likely to be greater impacts on wildlife, the process will hinder the ability of planning authorities to adhere to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006). This places a duty on every public authority in England and Wales to “…have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”

3. Reasonable Alternative Part 3: Chester and Cheshire West Specific Constraints

21 In our view, the main point of a local plan is to assist in deploying national policy on a local scale. In this vein, criteria for each of the forms of development should be addressed in a bespoke way - particularly fracking. For example:

- Make clear reference to human health; air quality and noise impacts under fracking since there are significant impacts of fracking which do not apply to other forms of development. For example, the plan should - in order to conform with paragraph 123 of NPPF - “identify and protect areas of noise tranquillity.” Fracking operations can be particularly noisy on a 24-hour basis and need to avoid areas of tranquillity; - Air Quality Management Areas – there are increased sensitivities for proposals near or within such areas; DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response - Venting and Flaring and HGVs – this would be dependent on sensitive and vulnerable receptors as well as the proposed location; - Water sensitivies – e.g. groundwater, protected watercourses in the vicinity of sites; - Seismic Activity – exploration and operational development can increase the risks of structural damage to buildings in the vicinity of the sites; - Best and most versatile agricultural land - preventing development within areas categorised as 1-3b (‘e.g. ‘excellent’-‘moderate quality’ land, in order to reduce the potential for impacts to the food supply); - Flooding and flood risk – preventing locations within the functional flood plain and possible buffer zones for areas close to flood zones 3a/ 3b in order to limit flood risk and surface water contamination); - Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change – fracking developments should demonstrate how they will help contribute to climate change mitigation (re section 19(1A) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 26 (PCPA))

22 We acknowledge that the existing version of policy DM50 covers some of the criteria provided above in part alternative approach 3, but that there should be more thorough application of the criteria, specific to fracking and the need to mitigate against unknown environmental impacts. We trust the planning authority will incorporate a more nuanced approach to assessing other available options in finalising Policy DM50, especially as detailed consideration of alternatives could lead to a wholly different overall policy approach.

Matter 4: Cumulative impacts and the precautionary principle

23 The NPPF states that in drafting policies for minerals development, DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response that planning authorities should:

“…take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality” 27

24 In considering contentious new types of unconventional gas development, especially where the actual or true environmental costs are so openly contested (whether for single or multiple well development), we are of the view that at the very least the precautionary approach should be adopted and all such proposals screened as to whether Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) will be required. As touched on above, we trust that the planning authority is aware of the risks unconventional gas extraction poses to water aquifers; a stance supported by the British Geological Survey28. In this light, the SA has failed to address potential impacts from unconventional hydrocarbon development on the water supply, instead seeming to lump the likely effects of this rather unknown and contentious process with those known impacts from more established oil and gas developments. Evidence provided by the British Geological Survey in the context of impacts on water supports this view, in that there are a number of key issues, including those linked to groundwater pollution, which remain highly contentious and where the true environmental impacts from fracking are not yet known:

“Existing frameworks and supporting risk-based tools provide a basis for regulating the industry but there is limited experience of their suitability for large scale on-shore activities that exploit the deep sub-surface. The tools for assessing risks may not be adequate as many have been designed to consider the risks from surface activities.” 29 DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 25 In addition, concerns regarding soil and air contamination as a result of contaminated flow-back or methane leaks have been reported on by credible bodies such as the UN30 and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)31. The unknown nature of the potential for either localised or cumulative environmental effects on either, or all of, air, soil or water quality strongly suggests that a robust screening requirement for all such applications should be undertaken32, as also reinforced by Planning Practice Guidance33.

26 This would represent a reasonable approach in light of evidence in the public domain that suggest unconventional gas applications possess the potential for major environmental impacts. We have included reference to this in our suggested policy amendment below:

Suggested Amendments to Policy DM50

“DM50 - Oil and Gas development

[Insert] Unconventional Oil and Gas

Proposals for exploration, appraisal and production of unconventional oil and gas will only be considered where they can demonstrate by appropriate evidence and assessment that reasonable scientific doubt can be excluded as to adverse impacts on the proposed development – either along on in combination with other developments:

- On the quality and quantity of water resources, including groundwater and water courses - On air quality (including through emissions of methane and sulphur) DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response - On seismic activity - On local communities - On greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Planning permission for fracking or shale gas operations (including test drilling and extraction) will not be granted unless:

a) The planning authority has taken a precautionary approach to unconventional oil and gas development in requiring environmental impact assessment; b) The planning authority is satisfied beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that any risk of adverse impacts has been eliminated; c) the proposal will not compromise the planning authority’s duties in relation to climate change mitigation; and; d) the proposal and any cumulative effect is environmentally acceptable, or it can be made so by planning conditions or obligations. [End]

Conventional

Proposals for exploration of INSERT [conventional] hydrocarbons will only be permitted if exploration is for an agreed, temporary length of time and an assessment of the cumulative impact on climate change mitigation has been considered in relation to the UK'S commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008.

Conclusion

We therefore ask the council to reconcile its obligation to consider climate change mitigation given the Section 19(1A) duty set out in the DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended by the Planning Act 2008) and incorporate this obligation into aspects of Policy DM50. This is especially prudent in the absence of any strategic incorporation of this requirement in Policy ENV7 that has already been adopted.

We are of the opinion that the planning authority should reinvestigate the Sustainability Appraisal for policy DM50 and update this in light of the yet unknown environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing; especially when estimating the likely outcomes and significance of effect for each topic (including water, air, biodiversity, climate change et al).

We would ask the council to consider alternative options for policy DM50, especially in light of the failings of the Sustainability Appraisal to incorporate realistic outcomes for unconventional hydrocarbons. There are opportunities to include a range of other scenarios, be it exclusively a Carbon Emissions Reduction Element; based on Location Specific Criteria or tailored to consider Specific Constraints; or a mix of the three.

When coming to a suitable approach to dealing with applications for unconventional hydrocarbon extraction, we would ask the planning authority to consider adopting the precautionary principle in terms of the unknown environmental effects of the process, subjecting the application to rigorous screening and ensuring that in making application decisions, that are based on scientific certainty that all potential issues can be overcome. 2264 LOCAL PLAN (PART TWO) LAND ALLOCATIONS AND DETAILED POLICIES – Reference to ‘shale oil and gas’ has been amended to ‘oil and gas’. PREFERRED APPROACH CONSULTATION 12 AUGUST – 23 SEPTEMBER 2016 The explanation has been amended to provide a more detailed reference to the Government’s energy policies and aims to achieve I am writing on behalf of Peel Gas & Oil to set out their views on the Local DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies Preferred self-sufficiency in energy production. Approach. The word ‘only’ has been removed from the second and third Peel Gas & Oil are part of the Peel Group, a leading UK real estate, paragraphs to make them more positive statements. transport and infrastructure company with a diverse range of business activities, including the ports, airports, energy and property. Peel Gas & Minerals, can only be worked where they naturally occur, but there Oil works in partnership with onshore gas and oil operators to identify will be some flexibility in the location of above ground works, for and deliver land, consents and construction of oil and gas infrastructure example storage areas and link roads, so these should be directed to facilitate the establishment of a major potential industry. to the least environmentally sensitive location, where possible.

Peel are generally supportive of the approach taken in the draft local plan, The policy currently states that noise should be controlled, but feel that some changes would benefit the clarity of the document for mitigated or removed so that proposed levels are acceptable and interested parties and better link the document to the guidance in the will not have a significant detrimental impact on residential National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Policy Guidance amenity. This does not set specific noise levels and could allow (NPPG). This would ensure that the key soundness tests of ensuring some short term noisy activity as long as it is avoided or mitigated consistency with national policy is achieved, and should also make it a where possible and resulting levels are acceptable. Further criteria more effective document. relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD. Policy DM50: Oil and Gas Development Bullet point 8 referring to proposals being appropriately screened Alignment with National Policy and Guidance from public view has been deleted as it is covered in bullet point 3.

There are aspects of Policy DM50 that do not comply with guidance in the The other references to visual amenity has been retained, as they NPPF or NPPG, which require to be addressed to ensure the key refer to screening and impact of well pads, plant, buildings and soundness tests of ensuring consistency with national policy is achieved. other structures. These aspects of Policy DM50 are considered below: Additional text has been added to state that lighting should allow Government Commitment safe operation of activities on site.

The NPPG makes it clear 1 that there is a pressing need to establish Additional text has been added to the explanation to state that DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response whether or not there are sufficient recoverable quantities of where land is allocated or safeguarded for a particular use, but the unconventional hydrocarbons for full scale production. This message is land is also covered by a PEDL licence, use for oil or gas extraction based on the wider energy policy of the UK2 which, as a whole, seeks to may still be acceptable as long as the allocation or safeguarding is secure a transition to a lower carbon future. not affected and the proposal complies with the criteria within Policy DM50 and other development plan policies. 1 Paragraph: 091 NPPG Reference ID: 27-091-20140306 2 Annual Energy Statement 2014 Policy DM 58 relates to restoration of minerals and oil and gas sites. It states that proposals for restoration and aftercare should be This transition recognises that there needs to be a mix of energy sources sufficiently comprehensive, detailed, practicable and achievable. with an increasing reliance on renewables. However, it also recognises that gas, as a demand responsive and relatively clean fossil fuel, is an Reference to proposals for hydraulic fracturing only being important step away from coal, and a necessary part of the supply mix to permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater protection reduce our carbon footprint overall. areas has been removed from the policy as the policy should not repeat legislation, but reference to the relevant legislation has been This overall policy message should be made clearer within the policy and included in the explanation. go beyond what is mentioned in paragraph 10.287 of the policy Reference to the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing regulations within explanation. the explanation has been retained.

Terminology Reference to the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been changed to the Department for Business, Energy and The Government has highlighted that hydrocarbon extraction is a Industrial Strategy. necessary part of the energy supply mix, and therefore it is not appropriate for Policy DM50 to be considered as an "alternative energy Reference to PEDL blocks has been updated to show the position as supply". We therefore consider that it should be contained under the at March 2017. "Minerals supply and safeguarding" section of the Local Plan Part Two. Furthermore, to ensure the policy is compliant with the terminology used It is not considered necessary to show existing hydrocarbon sites on in the NPPF and NPPG the proposals map, as this will change over time.

3, we consider that the policy should be renamed to "DM50: Conventional and Unconventional Hydrocarbons" rather than ‘oil and gas development’. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response There are some references throughout the wording in the policy and explanation text to ‘shale’: not all unconventional hydrocarbons come from shale; coal, for example, is also a relevant source (although there are many others). References to ‘shale’ should therefore be deleted throughout, and ‘oil and gas’ replaced with ‘hydrocarbons’.

Presumption in favour of sustainable development and positively worded policies

At the heart of the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and is the golden thread running through plan-making and decision taking 4. The NPPF emphasises that policies should be positively worded and reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development5. The NPPF starts from a positive position and recognises that minerals are essential to sustainable economic growth and quality of life, and that there should be a sufficient supply to meet the countries needs6.

Currently Policy DM50 does not reflect this policy guidance: it starts from an essentially negative position of "…will only be supported where…". In accordance with the above guidance in the NPPF, the policy should be reframed to be more positive, for example "Hydrocarbon development will be supported, provided that…".

The NPPF also recognises that when setting out policies, environmental criteria should be established so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health (including noise, dust, visual intrusion, traffic, land stability, settlement and subsidence, groundwater and contamination migration) 7. Some of the criteria currently proposed in DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Policy DM50 do not comply with this policy guidance, and should be reframed to take account of the following:

3 Paragraph 091 Reference ID: 27-091-20140306 4 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF 5 Paragraph: 011 Reference ID: 12-011-20140306 6 Paragraph 142 of the NPPF 7 Paragraph 143 of the NPPF 8 Paragraph 142 of the NPPF

Bullet point 1 of the Policy DM50 is overly restrictive: Minerals, including hydrocarbons, can only be worked where they naturally occur 8. Therefore, location options for the economically viable extraction of minerals may already be limited. Policies therefore should reflect the need to economically recover hydrocarbons, whilst also selecting the least environmentally sensitive locations.

The NPPF specifically recognises that, for minerals operations, some short term noisy activity which would otherwise be unacceptable may be unavoidable and that this should be reflected in setting noise limits9.

• Reference to visual amenity is repeated three times at bullet points 3, 8 and 10, which could be combined. Some hydrocarbon operations may have a temporary adverse visual impact (for example during the relatively short term exploration and appraisal stages) which it is not possible to fully mitigate and that this may be unavoidable.

• Lighting needs to be adequate to allow safe operation of activities on site, whilst ensuring no significant effect on amenity, wildlife or highway DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response safety.

• The criterion which refers the wellpads, plant (etc.) being painted to assimilate into surroundings may be appropriate for the production stage, but it is an unrealistic expectation for a contractor to re-paint a drilling rig to match the backdrop of a site, particularly given the limited duration of such works.

• In addition, it would be helpful if the supporting text could explain that where sites are allocated / safeguarded for a particular use, such as employment land, but where this land is also a PEDL licence area, then use for hydrocarbon exploration or extraction may still be acceptable, provided that compliance with the criteria within Policy DM50 and other development plan policies can be demonstrated. At present, the policy approach does not allow for such a situation.

Criteria based policies for each phase of hydrocarbon extraction

The NPPF 10 and NPPG11 require a criteria based policy which clearly distinguishes between each of the exploration, appraisal and production phases of hydrocarbon extraction. It also requires that these policies should set clear guidance and criteria for the location and assessment of hydrocarbon extraction. Currently Policy DM50 refers to exploration, then production (missing appraisal) and only then brings in generic criteria for all phases in the bullet list. The policy is not clear what considerations apply at which stage, and as the activities involved at each stage are different, further guidance on the minimum information required to support applications at each stage is required. We suggest the policy is restructured broadly along the lines set out below: DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 9 Paragraph 143 of the NPPF 10 Paragraph 147 of the NPPF 11 Paragraph: 106 Reference ID: 27-106-20140306 All phases: • Ground and surface water protection measures, including any advance monitoring • Flood risk • Water supply • Process / flowback / formation water management measures • Other waste or arisings management measures • Geology, land stability and contamination • Noise • Emissions to Air, including appropriate control of fugitive emissions • Landscape and visual effects • Traffic and transportation, including vehicle routing • Heritage • Ecology/ Biodiversity •Seismic risk and monitoring proposals • Socio-economic effects • Site remediation, restoration and intended after uses • Outline construction, traffic and environmental management plans Exploration Phase: • Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints • Activities and investigations to be undertaken during exploration • Gas management proposals, including the need for any flaring • Any proposed lateral drilling or hydraulic fracturing • Any cumulative effects with other appraisal or exploration works in the gas field Appraisal Phase: DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response • Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints • Gas management proposals, including the need for any flaring and the capturing / storage / export of produced gas. • Any proposed lateral drilling and hydraulic fracturing • Any cumulative effects with other appraisal or exploration works in the gas field Production Phase: • Site selection information, including any geological or seismic survey data, and any environmental constraints • Area wide development proposals, including wellbore locations, and any lateral drilling and fracturing operations • Cumulative effects • Any onsite infrastructure required for the collection, processing and compression of gas • Any onsite electricity generation proposals • Gas transport proposals or intentions

Restoration and Aftercare

The NPPG is clear that the level of detail required on restoration depends on the circumstances of each specific site, and only stipulates that it must be sufficient to clearly demonstrate that the scheme is practically achievable 12. We consider that an outline of the restoration scheme, including indicative working methods and a strategy which is likely to create an appropriate after use, would be a reasonable minimum requirement, which can then be linked to a condition which requires detailed proposals to be agreed once the relevant phase or operations is drawing to a close; Policies DM50 and DM58 should reflect this. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Other Amendments

The following inconsistencies required to be addressed as follows:

Paragraph 3 in Policy DM50 reiterates the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Area) Regulations 2016 requirement for hydraulic fracturing to only take place below 1,200 metres in groundwater source protection zone 1. Planning policy does not need to reiterate these regulations particularly when this is again repeated in the explanation section of the policy; therefore, this paragraph should be removed from the policy wording.

• Paragraph 10.289 refers to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). DECC has now been abolished and became part of Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in July 2016. The policy needs to be updated to reflect this.

• Paragraph 10.292 refers to 12 blocks being licensed as at May 2016; however, this is incorrect and should be amended to May 2015.

• The Council has included PEDL Areas on their proposals map in accordance with the requirements of the NPPG13. There may also be merit in showing existing hydrocarbon sites on the proposals map.

In reviewing the information detailed above, I trust that you will take our comments into account and amend the policies related to conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon extraction to better align with the guidance contained within the NPPG. 2269 UKOOG welcomes the development of policy DM50 – Oil and Gas All policies should be aligned with national guidance and consistent Development -, which provides specific clarity on how oil and gas DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response exploration and production will be considered by CWAC Council. with the NPPF, so it is not necessary to state this within the policy.

Our specific comments on policy DM50 are as follows: Reference to proposals for hydraulic fracturing only being permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater protection  Reference should be specifically made, up-front in the policy areas has been removed from the policy as it should not repeat statement, that this policy is aligned to national planning legislation, but reference to the relevant legislation has been guidance on Oil and Gas and that this policy is fully consistent included in the explanation. with the NPPF.  Paragraph three, ‘Proposals for hydraulic fracturing will only be The assessment of the least environmentally sensitive location will permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater areas be made by planning officers, supported by comments from (source protection zone 1)’. This statement should be cross statutory bodies. The other criteria within the policy will help to referenced to the Infrastructure Act 2015, as it may be inferred identify the last environmentally sensitive location, for example in from the statement that hydraulic fracturing below the volumes terms of landscape, residential amenity and wildlife. It is not defined by the Act can only be undertaken below 1200m in possible to specify what would constitute the least environmentally GSPZ1. Further-more this statement also fails to stipulate that sensitive location as this would depend upon the nature of the High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing can only take place 1000m proposal and the area. below the ground, outside protected, areas as defined by the act. It is not considered necessary to include the wording ‘take account  Bullet point one does not provide sufficient context in which the term ‘least environmentally-sensitive location’ can be readily of the landscape character assessment’ as this is covered within evaluated or assessed. Clarification should be provided on what policy GBC 5 protection of countryside and landscape in the Local the term ‘least’ means. Plan (Part Two) and policies STRAT 9 and ENV 2 in the Local Plan (Part One).  Bullet point five should include the term ‘in-line with regulatory standards’. Other Council officers will be involved in the determination of  Bullet point ten should include the wording, ‘take account of the planning applications, but it is not considered necessary to mention landscape character assessment’ as in bullet one. Reference all potential officers as this will depend upon the nature of the should also be made to engagement with the Councils proposal. Landscape/Visual Amenity officer(s).  Bullet point eleven is regulated by the Environment Agency. The role of the other statutory bodies is briefly covered in the Reference to their role in addressing water resource management explanation to the policy and further detail is provided within the issues should be made. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Bullet point thirteen should make reference to EIA and the role of SPD. the Environment Agency in regulating waste through permitting regulations. A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation  Bullet point fifteen is a specific requirement under the of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive Infrastructure Act for High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing in shale or emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be rock encased in shale, reference to the Act should be made here. responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The  The final paragraph in the policy statement should include the Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. wording in blue, ‘The formation and organisation of regular site The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and liaison committees are required in line with community interest in reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. such. It is not considered necessary to refer to legislation within the policy.

The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD. The SPD refers to site liaison committees being set up where there is interest from local residents. 2313 I am writing with regard to the proposals for fracking in the Frodsham No change to policy required. area and also with regard to the process in general.

I think that it is clear that desperation for fossil fuels is leading the country in the wrong direction with regard to energy. It has been obvious for a long time now that anyone with any common sense realises that what the nation really needs is massive improvements in public transport and to remove vehicles from the road, improve air quality and look to actually improve the lives of people in the UK with clean energy. However due to lobbying by the industry and the removal of democratic rights by the government we have seen a rise in an industry that clearly only benefits DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the small minority and harms the majority.

Any system that can be seen to cause the enormous environmental and health problems that can be found in the US has got to be recognised as a bad idea. I can see only one reason why this would be pursued and that it will make a small number of people very wealthy. Even if we could look at the process and say, there are risks, it might cause problems and it might harm people. Then we should be saying 'no' we are not going to risk the publics health on this process.

The senate hearing which involved a director of a fracking company refusing to drink water from an areas where the process has been taking place surely proves that it is not safe. Often what we see in these cases is the slow creep of various processes, we discuss the minutiae of the wells and the type of chemicals and we seek to compromise on various things. All of this ever achieves is the corporations giving way on simple things that they don't really care about in order to get their own way eventually. However what we should be contemplating is the basic undemocratic aspects of this industry. When local communities are consulted they say that they do not want this to happen, therefore they should be listened to. The government should take its hand out of the pocket of large corporations for a change and actually make a decision on behalf of the population.

It would be nice to see the government try and improve the lives of the general population for a change instead of simply helping rich individuals and corporations get even richer to the detriment of everyone else. I am sure that none of this will actually be listened to and we will wait until there is some kind of enormous catastrophe that forces our hand. It is simply depressing that we continue to think small, think in 5 year cycles DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response where politicians are desperate to feather their own nests instead of securing the future of the population.

Are we going to see the industry fracking outside the house of David Cameron or Theresa May? Lets see them drink some water from the Williston Basin. 2500 "The proposed is appropriately screened from public view" appears twice, Bullet point 8 referring to proposals being appropriately screened in the third and eighth bullet points of the policy from public view has been deleted as it is covered by other criteria within the policy. Amend to remove the repetition. 2510 Partial duplication of content. Both policies [DM50] deal with different The policies will be clarified to show which relate to oil and gas and forms of mineral development but while it is clear that DM50 applies only which relate to minerals and whether the minerals policies include to energy minerals, DM57 reads as though it applies to ALL mineral oil and gas. developments, including energy minerals. This could lead to confusion.

Add appropriate clarification to make clear that Policy DM57 applies to all minerals proposals except this covered by DM50. 2571 Within the Council boundary, IGas Energy hold several Petroleum Formatting and consistency of layout issues will be dealt with in the Exploration and Development Licences (PEDLs) namely, 145, 147, 184, updated version of the plan. 188, 189, 190 and 193. Reference to proposals for hydraulic fracturing only being Oil and gas in Cheshire West and Chester permitted below 1200 metres in specified groundwater protection areas has been removed from the policy as it should not repeat Oil and gas supplies are of fundamental importance in the Chester West legislation, but reference to the relevant legislation has been and Chester Council area, which is heavily industrialized and dependent included in the explanation. on hydrocarbons as an energy source and feedstock in a large number of intensive manufacturing processes. The word ‘only’ has been removed from the second and third paragraphs to make them more positive statements. Over the last few decades several wells have been drilled in the area but, Minerals, can only be worked where they naturally occur, but there DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response more recently, we have drilled exploratory wells in both Ellesmere Port will be some flexibility in the location of above ground works, for and Ince Marshes. In addition to this, last year we acquired around example storage areas and link roads, so these should be directed 100km² of 3D seismic data within the Council area. to the least environmentally sensitive location, where possible.

We are currently finalising the interpretation and assessment of this The policy has been split into sections relating to the stage of drilling data and 3D seismic acquisition which confirms the shale potential development and the screening criteria now take account of the within the survey area. relevant stage and the potentially temporary nature of that stage.

This data will be used to identify drilling locations and will allow us to firm The criterion relating to protection of statutory utilities and up a development programme that will lead to commercial gas pipelines has been removed. production following successful appraisal testing. The appropriateness of screening will be assessed by Council In addition to this, the area has been selected to host a nationally officers, with guidance from relevant consultees, on a case by case significant research project funded by the UK government. The Energy basis. Security & Innovation Observing System for the Subsurface (ESIOS) is a multi-million pound project which seeks to understand how subsurface The criterion relating to site liaison committees has been removed formations respond to fluid movement whether by its introduction or its from the policy, as it is not enforceable through the policy. extraction. However, it is referred to in the explanation and within the SPD.

IGas Energy: consultation response The Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations were drafted in 2015 and made in 2016. As such, the reference within the text will not As a general comment it has been difficult to respond to some of the be amended. policies within the Land Allocations and Detailed Policies document due to differing styles of formatting. A number of policies contain numerous sub- policy bullet points that are not numbered. For example, Policy DM1 contains 27 bullet points, when making a comment it would be more helpful to the user to be able to reference it by a separate number rather than a bullet point. In contrast, Policy DM4 has 8 sub policy points that are clearly numbered. DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response DM50 Oil and Gas Development

Para 2 of the policy recommends that development proposals must accord with the plan policies. Subsequently it is important that policies within the plan are appropriately worded so that they are reflective of national guidance for minerals development including oil and gas. As outlined in our response above not all of the policies written would be relevant or appropriate for minerals development, in particular DM1 and DM21.

Para 3 of the policy is a clear reference from the Onshore Hydraulic Fracturing (Protected Area) Regulations 2015. However, it doesn’t read correctly and could be interpreted that there is to be no hydraulic fracturing in other source protection zones or outside the source protection zones. Para 3 should be rewritten to make it apparent that regulations are in place to control onshore hydraulic fracturing within protected areas.

The 2015 Regs state: 2.

(1) This regulation defines "protected groundwater source areas" for the purposes of section 4A of the Act. (2) A "protected groundwater source area" is any land at a depth of less than 1,200 metres beneath a relevant surface area. (3) For the purpose of paragraph (2), "relevant surface area" means any land at the surface that is— (a) within 50 metres of a point at the surface at which water is abstracted from underground strata and is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes, or ( (b) within or above a zone defined by a 50-day travel time for DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response groundwater to reach a groundwater abstraction point that is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes. Item (b) is termed by the Environment Agency as Source Protection Zone 1.

The 2015 Regs also allow for the hydraulic fracturing at a depth greater than 1,200m below other protected areas which are defined as a National Park; the Broads; an area of outstanding natural beauty; or a World Heritage site. These depth restrictions are not applicable for land outside defined protected areas.

1st Bullet point

Above ground activity has been directed to the least environmentally- sensitive location

This requirement is very restrictive and does not allow a balance of all sustainable factors. Therefore, the policy is unsound as it is not positively prepared and is not consistent with national policy.

3rd bullet point

The proposal is appropriately screened from public view and would not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity

We do not object to the approach here but we consider that the short term nature of exploratory development should be factored in.

9th bullet point DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response The proposal will not result in damage or interruption to statutory utilities or pipelines.

There is separate legislation in place for the protection of statutory utilities and pipelines and therefore this bullet point is not necessary.

10th bullet point

Well pads and associated plant, buildings and other structures are designed and located within the site to minimise visual intrusion, adequately and harmoniously screened from sensitive locations; appropriately finished and coloured to assimilate into their surroundings; and will be removed from the site at the cessation of oil or gas extraction.

We would like some further consideration of the terminology used within the 10th bullet point to this policy. The use of the words ‘adequately and harmoniously screened’ are open to interpretation.

The final paragraph of the policy requires the formation and organisation of regular site liaison committees. IGas are committed to ongoing community liaison and have successfully established community liaison groups at existing and proposed sites across the UK. However, the establishment of a liaison groups is normally done by legal agreement as it falls outside the scope of a planning permission. In addition, it is difficult to enforce a policy that requires the input of third parties who may not be interested in establishing a liaison committee. We would question the delivery of this element of the policy and believe it to be unsound.

Para 10.285 – the regulations referred to were published in 2015 and not 2016 as quoted. As per our comments above the paragraph could be DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response reworded so that it is not misinterpreted. We suggest that the second sentence be amended to read as follows:

The regulations ensure that within the defined protected areas the process of hydraulic fracturing can only take place below 1200 metres in specified groundwater areas (source protection zones 1), National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and World Heritage Sites.

No such depth restrictions apply to hydraulic fracturing outside of these defined protected areas. 2596 I wish to register my worries regarding the possible fracking proposed for The policy already states that environmentally preferable the Helsby and Frodsham marshes. There are already many air alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where contaminating industries in the surrounding area therefore the probability possible. that permission will be given for oil and gas exploration in the area is extremely worrying. Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic My main worries are- can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can The damage to nearby properties and an increase in heavy be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the goods/industrial traffic on roads that are unsuitable. development is brought into use. The Environment Agency are responsible for protection of water The very real possibility of contamination of the water table. quality and prevention of water pollution. The policy cannot duplicate the controls of statutory bodies. The proven possibility of an earthquake, minor or otherwise. The Oil and Gas Authority are responsible for monitoring and The certainty of 24hr fracking with noise and lighting disturbance for local mitigating seismic risk. residents. The policy already includes criteria relating to noise, lighting and The Mersey Estuary already supports a very great deal of industry- PLEASE protection of residential amenity. . Further criteria relating to DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response DON'T DESTROY ANY MORE OF IT. noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and within the SPD. 2690 I am writing to formally express my objection to any potential fracking No change to policy required. taking place in Frodsham and would request that our representative council do not agree to this proposed project.

Fracking is a contentious subject nationwide and I do not feel the need to reiterate all the reasons why Frodsham residents do not want fracking to take place in and around Frodsham. These reasons are well known to you as councillors.

However, I do feel the need to ask that councillors will listen to local residents before making decisions about potential local fracking and respect the opinions of the population and subsequently represent their wishes by not allowing fracking to be established in our locality. 2685 I strongly disagree with the approach taken by CWAC. Issues relating to landscape character are covered by policy GBC 5 protection of countryside and landscape within the Local Plan (Part Bullet point 1: Two) and in policies STRAT 9 and ENV 2 in the Local Plan (Part One). the size and necessary density of the fracking pads for wells will have a significant and detrimental impact wherever they are sited. The The policy already includes a criterion relating to noise. This will surrounding landscape will not be able to accommodate them. ensure that noise levels are acceptable. Further criteria relating to noise are provided in policy DM 21 in the Local Plan (Part Two) and Bullet point 5: within the SPD. With regards to unavoidable noise and vibration the seismic drilling locally last summer in Godscroft Lane Helsby on farmland next to houses has Noise levels will be assessed by the Council if issues are raised already caused significant cracking to internal walls and structural damage during operation. to a chimney for which the owners have received no compensation or remediation. Already 2/3rds of the UK insurance market have stated that Most of the monitoring and assessment will be the responsibility of they will not insure against fracking related damage. Procedures should other statutory bodies and therefore cannot be required through be included for the independent monitoring of noise and the effects of the policy. The SPD refers to baseline conditions and ongoing DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response vibration on both public and private property. monitoring.

Bullet point 7: The Oil and Gas Authority are responsible for monitoring and With regards to road traffic/travel fracking sites operating 24/7 will mitigating seismic risk. without doubt significantly increase congestion. Pollution, and road traffic accidents, not to mention significant extra wear and tear to road surfaces The policy already states that environmentally preferable and structures which will be caused by the sheer volume of traffic needed alternatives to road travel should be considered and used where to service the high density of wells which are necessary to make the possible. Policy DM 46 relates to parking and access and additional process economically viable provision should be made for who is to be text has been added to this policy to state that developments responsible for such costs. should not create any unacceptable impacts on amenity or road safety that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated by routeing controls Bullet point 9: or other highways improvements. Provision should be made for developers to be required to undertake ground water and air quality measurements within the agreed drilling Policy STRAT10 in the Local Plan (Part Two) states that new radius and laterals at agreed reasonable intervals the results of which development will be required to demonstrate that additional traffic should be made public and subject to agreed independent peer review. can be accommodated safely and satisfactorily within the existing, or proposed highway network and satisfactory arrangements can Bullet point 11: be made to accommodate the additional traffic before the Given that there is a large body of evidence already available in other development is brought into use. jurisdictions, and nearer to home in Lancashire that fracking has The SPD identifies that applicants must provide for the detrimental impacts on the quality of both ground and surface water maintenance of the local highway infrastructure should damage indeed the PNAS report in 2015 has proved that "faults" are conduits for occur. This could be referenced in conditions and does not need to ground water contamination, provision needs to be made for the be specifically covered in the policy. independent monitoring and remedial measures taken whether it be on public or private land affected. The Environment Agency are responsible for monitoring and controlling the chemical content of hydraulic fracturing fluids and Bullet point 12: this requires environmental permits. The EA are also responsible Unfortunately evidence is already available to show a growing concerns in for protecting groundwater and surface water from pollution and this area. Professor David Smythe has done extensive research into the dealing with industrial emissions activity, water discharge and impacts caused by extraction of shale gas. CWAC need to be mindful of radioactive substances. Fault lines can impact on transmission of DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the need for independent monitoring of subsidence issues on both private water and potential pollutants and this will be taken into account and public land and to indicate what remedial action they will be by the Environment Agency. The Local Plan cannot duplicate the responsible for and who will bear the cost of remedial actions required. controls of other statutory bodies. Policy DM 36 also refers to water quality, supply and treatment. Bullet point 13: Greenhouse gases merely from the drilling processes and increased Applicants will need to provide evidence as part of any application, transport of the fuel will increase greenhouse gases. Indeed in March to show that proposals will not result in an increased risk of 2016 startling new evidence was cited showing an alarming rise in subsidence. The Cheshire Brine Subsidence Compensation Board methane gas (86 times more powerful than Co2) measured by satellite in will be a consultee in relevant areas. the United States over areas that use fracking. Over 10 years the measurement of greenhouse gas in an area not densely populated but A policy has been added referring to the control and minimisation fracked, had increased by 30%. The research and monitoring are of gas emissions, replacing the more detailed criterion on fugitive continuing at Harvard. Please confirm the process for assessing emissions and greenhouse gasses. The Environment Agency will be "unacceptable adverse environmental impacts" and the scope for responsible for monitoring and control of fugitive emissions. The independent peer and community review. Local Plan cannot duplicate the controls of other statutory bodies. The role of the other statutory bodies is explained in the SPD and Bullet point 15: reference to this has been added to the explanation to the policy. Parts of this area of North Cheshire area already heavily industrialised with significant motorway networks. The availability and Additional information relating to the assessment of cumulative public knowledge of air quality monitoring is a major public concern as is impacts is provided within the SPD. the safety in a highly densely populated country. Please confirm the The policy reflects current Government support for unconventional processes for considering the "cumulative impact on local communities" oil and gas extraction. The Local Plan (Part One) provides support and the provisions for peer and community review. for renewable and low carbon energy proposals. In general although you refer to section 144 of the National Planning Policy Guidelines there are future opportunities for the development of renewable sources such as wind/sun/tide as opposed to regressing to a policy which at best can only provide short term resources and is likely to leave a damaging environmental and economic legacy. The pursuit of such a policy proposed for fracking by CWAC would be a complete break DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response with promises signed up for in the Climate Change agreement and agreed by Parliament. The most sustainable policy for CWAC to engage in and one the population of Cheshire would support is the will to work with local industries to develop more creating but more importantly more sustainable solutions so that CWAC and the companies within it could be at the forefront of clean/green technology for the mutual benefit of industry and residents. 2758 There is significant local concern about the safety of these new Impacts on health will be dealt with by the Health and Safety technologies. The Marshes are a precious resource and needs more Executive. protection. Mitigation Fund need to sort out any contamination problems as this has been problematic in the past in other industries. Restoration The appropriateness of a bond will depend on the proposal. The fund needed to restore the land at the end of the economic life of the National Planning Policy Framework states that bonds or other scheme. Community Benefit Fund needs to be established before scheme financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only be starts to prevent Wind Farm type problems. sought in exceptional circumstances, as such it is not possible to require bonds through the policy. Bond or Insurance Policy requirement. The Community Benefit Fund is an offer from UKOOG members for £100,000 at each well site and 1% of revenues. The Shale Wealth Fund is up to 10% of tax revenues arising from shale gas production to be used for the benefit of local communities. Both of these potential payments are outside the planning process and levels cannot be specified in the Local Plan policy. 2792 There is limited scope for minerals extraction within the Parish and as No change to policy required. such the Parish Council makes no comment on the policies in relation to aggregate minerals. As an area that has been subject to investigation for the potential for hydraulic fracturing the Parish Council is extremely anxious to ensure that the policy framework allows for the proper consideration of any proposals that come forward. Mickle Trafford Parish Council has not yet adopted a formal stance on the principle of hydraulic fracturing within the parish boundary but is aware that there is clear DM 50 – Oil and gas development Question 91 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response opposition to such proposals from the majority of residents as shown by the results of a recent survey carried out by a local group using appropriate formal survey methodology. 2802 Whilst we acknowledge that Mineral and Waste matters are outside the No change to policy required. purview of the Local Neighbourhood Plan, concerns over The Gowy Landfill Site and Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction where ranked highly by those responding to our initial LNP Survey.

Q 91 - Oil and Gas development

In our initial LNP Survey, 65.7% of responding households expressed opposition to Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (including Fracking).

In a more recent survey, conducted in the summer of 2016, 1,131 residents, aged 18 and over, responded. This represents 63.3% of residents in that age group - The Office of National Statistics' 2014 mid- year population estimate of persons of aged 18 and over in the Mickle Trafford & District Parish Council area is 1,788. Of those responding, 81.7% (924 out of 1,131) believed that Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (including Fracking) would be bad thing for the area.

DM 51 – Wind Energy Question 92 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 11 Policy needs updating and review in terms of what needs to be Reference has been added to the UK renewable energy target. achieved to address climate change and meet carbon reduction targets. DM 51 – Wind Energy Question 92 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response Para 10.295 needs to be stronger to underscore the urgent need to ensure a low/zero carbon future. 141 This appears to allow neighbourhood plans to ban wind turbines Once through referendum, neighbourhood plans form part of the statutory development plan and where they have specific policies on wind development they will be taken into account in decision making. This policy simply makes that point clear. National guidance states that planning permission should only be granted if the proposal has the backing of local communities. If a neighbourhood plan includes a policy on wind development then this would inform that judgement. 237 Agree with this approach in general, but the policy should address noise Policy DM 30 – Noise covers noise from wind turbines. A link to issues this policy has been included in the text to policy DM 51. 754, 1625, Policy is too restrictive. The policy is supportive of wind energy developments which are 1460, 1486, Windfarms should be encouraged, should not be subject to greater of a scale and sited in a location where the impacts are 1948, 1981 restrictions than fracking acceptable. It recognises that wind turbines can have significant Opinions on the visual acceptability of turbines are mixed and may impacts on the landscape and other valued features. The criteria change as we see and experience the benefits of more of them. which apply to wind development are different than those which Objections on noise are unfounded as turbines are practically silent and apply to oil and gas extraction, because the impacts are very can be designed without causing problems for birds. different. The proposed policies on oil and gas and wind energy The policy is also inequitable in comparison with allowing electricity deal with the specific issues arising from the development in pylons and overhead cables. question; it is not considered that the wind energy policy is unnecessarily restrictive. Proposals involving new power lines would also be required to minimise their impacts, particularly on the landscape. 1625, 754 Misses the opportunity of siting turbines as features eg urban gateways Evidence from the Landscape Sensitivity Study suggests that or settlement signing and for encouraging agricultural diversification. smaller scale, single turbines are the type of wind energy development which is most likely to be acceptable. Such development could provide clean electricity to local communities and businesses including farms. The accompanying text has been expanded to include this point. DM 51 – Wind Energy Question 92 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1948, 1625 Wind turbines and solar installations should be appropriate National planning policy states that many elements of renewable development in the green belt. The approach to solar and wind energy energy will comprise inappropriate development in the green in the green belt in unduly restrictive and inequitable as it does not belt. This would generally include wind turbines and solar farms. apply to similar structure such as polytunnels. The explanatory text to the policy makes reference to this point. 1625, 1948 Suggest additional point – provision required for the removal of The policy requires that details of decommissioning and site turbines and related structures when they become redundant restoration are provided as part of any planning application for wind development. 1950 • The approach is unreasonably biased against wind and solar Policy ENV 7 of the Local Plan (Part One) is supportive of developments, and is therefore unable to reflect the greater public renewable energy proposals in general, subject to their impacts opinion, which supports renewable energy. Nor does it adequately being acceptable. Wind and solar proposals can present reflect the need to meet carbon reduction and renewable energy particular issues, relating to impact on the landscape in targets locally and nationally. particular, and these policies set out how the Council will address • Included in the draft needs to be a clear reference and any applications for this type of development. appreciation of the potential for wind turbines and solar installations to Text has been added to make reference to the UK renewable support CW&C's policy of encouraging agricultural 'diversification'. energy targets. • With reference to point 10.302 and 10.307, the critical National planning policy states that many elements of renewable necessity for clean, sustainable energy should be recognised as a energy will comprise inappropriate development in the green priority and proposals for wind turbines and solar installations in the belt. This would generally include wind turbines and solar farms. green belt constituted as appropriate development. The explanatory text to the policy makes reference to this point. 1891 Policy does not go far enough and fails to address the impacts that large The policy has been extended to include additional criteria developments have on a local community. Policy should have relating to impacts. Other impacts such as noise are covered by additional conditions and stipulate the proximity to households and other policies of the plan. established communities (2km). The appropriate, safe distance between wind turbines and Issues to cover – openness and transparency throughout by the residences will depend on the size of the turbine/s as well as on developers, commitment to work with communities, public forums, the potential noise and visual impact. National planning practice provision of funding for community advice and monitoring, full safety guidance advises against the stipulation of separation distances case and detailed plans for all stages of the proposed development, or buffer zones, as this will vary on a case by case basis. insurance and compensation arrangements to detail how communities The planning application process provides an opportunity for and the environment could be restored in the case of an incident, interested parties and local people to submit comments and consultation and local democracy, with commitment to holding a local demonstrate whether they support the proposal. In addition, DM 51 – Wind Energy Question 92 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response poll demonstrating local support for the proposal. there is a legal requirement for a developer to carry out pre- application consultation with the local community, for all planning applications for wind development involving more than 2 turbines or where the hub height of any turbine exceeds 15 metre. Minimum requirements for this consultation are set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, and include arrangements for publicity, provision of information about the scheme, the need for developers to have regard to any consultation responses and to provide information about how these comments have been taken into account. The policy makes reference to this requirement, further detail can be added to the text. Additional detail can be added to the text to the desirability for regular site liaison committees in large scale developments, where there is a community interest. 2124 Policy should make reference to the historic environment. Suggested Agreed, this text can be added to the policy. additional wording provided – • There should be no unacceptable harm to the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting; 2239 Sport England – generally support policy but request that a Sports Reference can be added to the policy to the need to take account Impact Assessment is carried out if a wind turbine is on, audible or of potential shadow flicker impacts on playing fields visible from a playing field. 2002 Proposals should be considered on their own merits. This policy should Wind and solar proposals can present particular issues, relating be deleted. to impact on the landscape in particular, and these policies set out how the Council will address any applications for this type of development. 2501 Policy references ‘areas of least constraint’ but does not link these to Amend the policy to make clear that areas of high landscape the terms of the 2015 MWS on planning for onshore wind. Areas of sensitivity are considered unsuitable for wind development. least constraint are not shown on the mapping and so it is unclear These areas can be shown on the policies map. The policy makes whether the policy is compliant with the WMS. it clear that other areas may be suitable for wind development, subject to meeting the criteria set out in the policy. DM 51 – Wind Energy Question 92 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2704 Wind energy sites should be located off shore Each application must be assessed on its merits, and where applications for onshore wind turbines are proposed, this policy provides a framework for assessing the impacts. Where the impacts are unacceptable planning permission will be refused, but where such impacts are considered to be acceptable then wind development can help contribute towards meeting targets for renewable energy generation. 2794 Although in general support of energy production by sustainable Comments noted. methods, the Parish Council considers that there is limited capacity within the (Mickle Trafford) parish boundary for large scale developments of this nature and such proposals would need to be very carefully considered. The Parish Council supports the view set out in policy DM 51 (relating to wind energy) that proposals for large groups of turbines are unlikely to be acceptable. 2442 Wind turbines will cause significant adverse impacts in areas of high Comment noted. landscape sensitivity, like the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge. Welcomes the inclusion within policy DM51 that applications for wind energy within areas of high landscape sensitivity will not be supported. 2814 Policy DM51 (wind energy) should ensure that development meets the Reference to aerodrome safeguarding and reference to the relevant criteria of the aerodrome safeguarding policy. relevant policy (DM11) has been included in DM51

DM 52 – Solar Energy Question 93 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 775, 1982 Policy is unduly restrictive and inequitable compared to the similar This policy has been written in light of national planning guidance effect of polytunnels which are permitted development. The clause which sets out the issues which should be taken into account when regarding special circumstances weakens the protection of green belt considering solar farm development. The reference to green belts by implying that renewable energy production may be considered as a in the text reflects national planning policy guidance which states: very special circumstance, which it isn’t. When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable DM 52 – Solar Energy Question 93 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. 985, 1100, Statement in the policy about avoiding best and most versatile The policy sets out a clear sequential test for development, 1799 agricultural land is too woolly. Should be a clear indication of what the favouring previously developed land over agricultural land. factors are, that demonstrate there are not other suitable sites. Developers would be required to provide robust evidence as to Development of best and most versatile should be prohibited why any proposals for development on high quality agricultural land should be considered acceptable. As written the policy reflects national planning guidance. 1487, 1553 Policy is good as far as it goes but should do more to encourage solar The policy will be amended to make it clear that it relates to panels on roofs of domestic commercial and community buildings, ground mounted solar developments, rather than photovoltaic particularly new builds. cells on buildings. The addition of solar panels on existing domestic and non-domestic buildings is often permitted Developers should be encouraged to put solar panels on new homes development so does not require planning consent. Provision of renewable energy generation on new buildings, including residential development, is supported by policy DM4 – Sustainable Construction. Text has been added to the explanation to policy DM52 to make this clear. 2104 Object to the sequential approach, that greenfield will only be The approach to favouring previously developed land over acceptable for solar energy if brownfield is unavailable. No national agricultural is set out in national planning policy guidance and a policy/guidance which dictates such an approach. Brownfield land Written Ministerial Statement (March 2015). This policy reflects likely to have higher land values and with current government prices that guidance. paid through the tariff this policy is likely to prevent sustainable development 2125 Policy should make reference to the historic environment. Suggested The suggested text has been added to the policy. additional wording provided 2444 Sandstone Ridge Trust wishes to see policy strengthened by not Agree, the policy has been amended to make this point clear. DM 52 – Solar Energy Question 93 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response supporting solar farm proposals in areas identified as being of high landscape sensitivity for the scale of development proposed 1461 It is important that the Council does it’s utmost to promote renewable In terms of actions that the Council is taking on renewable energy, sustainable energy production in the area. the Low Carbon and Energy Reduction team are actively looking at the potential to reduce the Council’s own carbon and overall energy consumption, as well as ways to promote change across the borough. This includes work on identifying potential district heat networks, particularly centred around Ellesmere Port and central Chester, as well as investigating possibilities for solar energy generation on Council land and buildings. Studies on the potential for renewable energy generation from a variety of sources have informed the policies included in the draft Local Plan. 1570, 1571 There is no mention of renewable energy sources other than wind and Other renewable technologies such as hydropower do have some solar eg. Tidal and geothermal potential within the borough, but any such proposals are likely to be of a small scale and currently unlikely to be financially viable. Plan should address the potential for hydro power/tidal power which Specific issues relating to such technology are considered to be could raise cross boundary issues. Peel has proven the potential of the adequately covered by other policies on the plan (eg policies on Mersey Estuary and the plan should make provision for this technology biodiversity and built heritage). The scope for geothermal energy to be developed and brought forward. Also smaller scale deployment. generation within the borough has been identified as being limited See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/harnessing-hydroelectric-power. to specific areas, due to the geology of the area. Further work is currently underway to assess the potential from geothermal sources, but we have insufficient information or justification at the current time to include a policy relating to this. Policy ENV 7 of the Local Plan (Part One) is generally supportive of renewable energy proposals in general, subject to their impacts being acceptable. This policy covers development such as tidal and geothermal. 2815 Policy DM52 (solar energy), should ensure that developments meet the Reference to aerodrome safeguarding (policy DM 11) has been relevant criteria of the aerodrome safeguarding policy. included in DM52.

Environment (Managing waste): Questions 94 to 96

DM 54 – Waste Management Facilities Question 94 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 1452 The requirement for details of the type and source of the waste being The policy includes a requirement for information about the type managed is important and should form part of the permission to and source of waste proposed to be managed. This information will operate and continue to be monitored and enforced. Transportation assist in assessing the application and identifying potential impacts, of toxic waste from outside the area presents a risk to the public. which may need to be controlled. Monitoring measures are Smells and air quality around the area should be monitored in some required to be set out within the application. Conditions can be manner. attached to any grant of planning permission to require ongoing monitoring as appropriate. 988, 1101, Should be a separate policy on Biomass Impacts arising from biomass facilities are covered in the new policy 1783, 1803 on DM 53 - Energy Generation, Storage and district heat networks. 1916 The above policy is entirely focussed on the regulation of large scale The Council maintains an annual assessment of waste needs which development and the policy will provide adequate safeguards. There can be taken into account in determining planning applications. should however be additional requirements on the developer to There is sufficient capacity in the borough to meet identified waste provide a needs assessment. Large scale operations will import a needs to 2030, and the policy approach is to restrict further sizeable part of the waste stream and this introduces pressures on significant waste development to avoid over provision in the local other regulatory functions and impacts on the amenity of CWaC market. However, it does provide flexibility for additional waste residents and their communities. facilities to be developed, subject to the necessary safeguards. Such Small scale, localised facilities could however introduce significant facilities may well be smaller scale, allowing for sustainable solutions opportunities for more sustainable forms of heat and power, but may to waste management which may also provide opportunities for not meet the criteria outlined in this policy without recourse to a electricity generation and reuse of heat. needs assessment. The approach taken in many European countries is The new policy DM53 on energy generation and storage is for small scale energy from waste facilities to serve the local supportive of schemes for energy generation which can provide a community both with jobs but local heat systems. basis for local heat networks. 1940 Waste management must be provided only in line with local waste, The policy seeks to provide sufficient sites to manage local waste not imported waste and refers to the desirability of managing waste close to its source. The approach aim to avoid over-provision of waste management sites, which draw in waste from other areas. However, some wastes can only be treated at specialist facilities which require travelling further, and market forces means that wastes are not always treated DM 54 – Waste Management Facilities Question 94 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response at the closest facility. This borough exports waste to a variety of locations; it also imports waste, particularly from within the sub region. The policy aims to strike a balance between providing for local needs and preventing over provision of capacity in the local market, whilst providing for flexibility to allow waste to be managed in the most sustainable way. 2502 Policy appears to apply to any new facility, not just those located on Agree. The policy has been amended to make it clear that new large the safeguarded sites. However this isn’t entirely clear and there isn’t scale waste management facilities should be located on the any hierarchy for prioritising safeguarded sites over non allocated safeguarded sites which are the most appropriate locations for such sites. facilities. The revised policy directs smaller scale development to Commented previously that detailed waste policy should address the other existing waste management sites, Stanlow or other industrial variable scale and type of different waste management facilities eg areas. HWRCs vs large scale treatment facilities. These issues are covered under policy DM 4 - Sustainable DM53 does not address the impacts on non waste applications which Construction and DM 3 - Design, character and visual amenity. should design in waste collection and storage and include mechanisms for handling construction waste. Acknowledge that DM1 addresses some of these issues but there is no clear link to DM53 Agree, the explanatory text has been expanded to refer to the WNA. More justification in the explanatory text is required, including reference to Waste Needs Assessment 2793, 2803 Existing waste management facilities such as the Gowy landfill site Mickle Trafford PC seek a specific policy relating to monitoring and are subject to existing monitoring and control arrangements, control of existing waste management facilities (refer to Gowy landfill) attached to the applicable grant of planning permission.

The Gowy landfill site has been filled more slowly than originally The parish council acknowledge that Mineral and Waste matters are anticipated, due to changes in waste management patterns. This outside the purview of the Local Neighbourhood Plan, however has led to its lifespan being extended. A planning application has concerns over the Gowy Landfill Site and Unconventional Gas recently been permitted for the expansion of the lifespan of the site Exploration and Extraction were ranked highly by those responding to until November 2022, followed by a 1 year period for final site our initial LNP Survey. 44.8% of responding households wanted the restoration. Given recent closures of other landfill sites in the area, life of the Gowy Landfill Site to be restricted. it may be that the site is completed more quickly. 2502 Part One policy ENV8 ‘Managing waste’ states that existing landfill The three safeguarded sites at Ince Park (Protos), Lostock works and DM 54 – Waste Management Facilities Question 94 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response capacity and built waste management facilities are identified on the Kinderton Lodge are shown on the maps in the Local Plan (Part One). Policies Map. However, the Draft Policies Maps do not show these It is not the intention to show other sites with planning permission facilities. on the Policies Map as they will change over time. However, they are listed in the most up to date waste needs assessment. The explanation has been amended to make this clear. 1452 The requirement for details of the type and source of the waste being The policy includes a requirement for information about the type managed is important and should form part of the permission to and source of waste proposed to be managed. This information will operate and continue to be monitored and enforced. Transportation assist in assessing the application and identifying potential impacts, of toxic waste from outside the area presents a risk to the public. which may need to be controlled. Monitoring measures to be set Smells and air quality around the area should be monitored in some out within the application. Conditions can be attached to any grant manner. of planning permission to require ongoing monitoring as appropriate. 2192 Policy DM53 (waste management facilities) should ensure that Reference to aerodrome safeguarding and reference to the relevant development meets the relevant criteria of the aerodrome policy has been included in DM53 (renumbered as DM54). safeguarding policy. 2898 Policy DM 53 doesn't rely solely on the soils and BMV wording of It is not clear what change if any is required from this comment. The Policy DM 1, but includes the following criterion: policy has been amended to direct new waste development to Proposals for new waste management facilities and alterations or existing waste sites, industrial areas and Stanlow. additions to existing facilities will be required to demonstrate how they meet the following principles: Proposed development should be located on areas of lower environmental quality wherever possible, avoiding high quality agricultural land and having regard to the need to protect soil quality

DM 55 – Sites for replacement household waste recycling facilities Question 95 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Question 96 - Are there any suitable sites for new HWRCs (Household Waste Recycling Centres) in the Frodsham area and the rural area around Tattenhall? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2705/6 Tattenhall & District Parish Council would be very disappointed to Changes to opening times have been implemented following see any changes implemented which affected the opening times consultation undertaken by the Council’s Waste Management Service. and operations of the Tattenhall Waste Management Site. Whilst This is outside of the Local Plan process. we accept that the site is relatively small it is very convenient for residents in the South of the Borough and the Parish Council has grave concerns about an increase in fly tipping should the opening times be restricted. 997, 1102, It is essential that remote rural household waste sites be There is no proposal to close any sites at the current time. The local 1805 retained. Residents will not make a 30 mile round trip to Chester plan is supportive of proposals for a replacement, improved facility in to recycle household waste. Closure of these rural sites will drive the Tattenhall area which would serve a similar catchment area. an exponential increase in Fly Tipping. 1785 Support the policy but stress that the search for alternatives for The local plan is supportive of proposals for alternative facilities to the current sites at Tattenhall and Frodsham MUST continue. serve Frodsham and Tattenhall areas. 1923 Please amend the wording to reflect the ambition to accommodate Wording has been incorporated in the explanatory text of policy DM55 a re-use provision within the Bumpers Lane proposal and that the to this effect. Council is currently exploring options for alternative sites for replacement facilities for the Tattenhall and Frodsham HWRC within the key service centre area 145 Both these places have a site. There could be a household site at There are no proposals to create any additional sites at the current Wimbolds Trafford as cars currently drive through town to time, the Wimbolds Trafford area is served by the facility at Ellesmere Bumpers Lane to load up a skip that is driven back on the same Port which is relatively close by. roads to Wimbolds Trafford. 998, 1103, Not familiar with the Frodsham area. Unaware of any in the The Milton Green depot has been assessed as part of the site selection 1806 Tattenhall area, unless space exists at the old Cheshire County exercise. It has been discounted on the advice of Environmental Council depot at Milton Green. Protection, as it would be very difficult to adequately mitigate adverse impacts of a HWRC site on the adjacent residential properties. Further detail is provided in the Housing and Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. DM 55 – Sites for replacement household waste recycling facilities Question 95 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed Question 96 - Are there any suitable sites for new HWRCs (Household Waste Recycling Centres) in the Frodsham area and the rural area around Tattenhall? 1786, 1929 In respect of the Frodsham site consideration should be given to These sites have been assessed as part of the site selection exercise. using the Weaver Industrial Estate or the land adjoining that Both are within the Green Belt. A replacement HWRC site could Estate. This location will provide for increased capacity and potentially be developed at the Weaver Industrial Estate under existing facilities and will lead to increased employment opportunities. policies, subject to satisfactory resolution of highways and amenity issues. However, the landowner has indicated that they are not willing Land adjoining Mill Lane is brownfield and is currently permitted to make land within the site available for this use. for a temporary planning use to support an industrial project. This The land adjacent to the Weaver Industrial Estate is currently open and area is deemed to be in an area of flood risk yet is suitable for development would be contrary to national policy on protection of temporary consent. Inspection of this location will show that the green belts. land has been built up to a level considerably higher than the For the reasons given it is not appropriate to allocate either site within surrounding established land use, including the highway and this the plan. would mitigate against future flood risk. Further information on the site selection exercise is provided in the Housing and Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. 2759 The local plan is supportive of proposals for alternative facilities to serve the Frodsham area. A replacement HWRC site could potentially Frodsham Town Council would welcome a new site for the recycle be developed at the Weaver Industrial Estate under existing policies, centre as its current location is unsuitable – poor access and in the subject to satisfactory resolution of highways and amenity issues. centre of the town. Weaver Park is one suggested site. However, the landowner has indicated that they are not willing to make land within the site available for this use. It is therefore not appropriate to allocate the site within the plan. 2365 Bolesworth Estate Company notes the aspiration to replace the The site off Chester Road which was suggested by Bolesworth has been existing HWRC in Tattenhall with a modern larger facility. assessed as part of the site selection exercise. The greenfield site is in open countryside, it is not adjacent to an existing settlement or BEC is assessing land in its area to see if a suitable site can be employment area. It has been discounted on the grounds that found. In the event that we identify any potentially suitable sites development for a HWRC would conflict with local plan policies we will submit information to the Council. (STRAT9 and ENV2). Further information is provided in the Housing and Site subsequently submitted – land off Chester Road, Tattenhall Employment Land Allocations Background Paper.

Environment (Minerals supply and safeguarding): Questions 97 to 103

Policy DM 55 – Future sand and gravel working Question 97 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 146, 757, General support for the policy approach. No response required. 999, 1104, 1751, 1809

Policy DM 56 – Mineral Safeguarding Areas – prior extraction of minerals Question 98 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 147, 758, General support for the policy approach. No response required. 1000, 1105, 1753, 1811, 2191 2483 Reference should be added to the criterion to include Text has been added to the explanation to state that assessment of the reference to whether or not it is viable to extract a mineral. A existing and potential value of the mineral resource should take account of mineral may have a value, but the cost of its extraction / the current and anticipated future cost of extracting the mineral and processing etc may mean that it is not commercially viable. processing if required, and whether this results in a commercially viable operation. 2508 Incorrect reference to "British Geological Society", should be Reference to British Geological Society has been amended to British corrected to British Geological Survey. Geological Survey. No MSA is required for brick clay as clay deposits in the area are small and No explanation or guidance link given for the lack of a very localised. No representations were received requesting a MSA for requirement to safeguard brick clay. brick clay during the targeted consultation on safeguarding of minerals undertaken by the Council in 2011. This information has been added to the policy explanation. 2643 Silica sand should also be safeguarded and this should be Silica sand was not included in the original MSA that was identified in the included on the policies map. Local Plan (Part One) as according to the British Geological Survey data, there are no deposits of silica sand within Cheshire West and Chester. Buffer zones should be proposed to safeguard the whole of Since then, data has been provided to indicate that there are deposits of Policy DM 56 – Mineral Safeguarding Areas – prior extraction of minerals Question 98 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response the mineral resource otherwise peripheral areas of the silica sand in the Cranage area, which extend into Cheshire West and mineral resource could be effectively sterilised by other Chester. This area cannot be added to the MSA at this stage as this needs developments / proximity. to be done through the Local Plan (Part One). However, the relevant area will be allocated for silica sand within policy DM 60, which will help to protect this site for silica sand use. The consultation responses to targeted consultation on safeguarding of minerals undertaken by the Council in 2011 showed a mix of views on the need for additional buffer zones, but the majority who suggested they were necessary were doing so on grounds other than mineral safeguarding. As such, buffer zones were not considered to be required to safeguard the resource from the impact of proximal development. Whilst it is accepted that some minerals , due to the angle of dipping strata, need additional buffer zones beyond the outcrop, this situation does not present itself in the borough and therefore no buffer zones are proposed.

Policy DM 57 – Proposals for minerals working Question 99 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 148, 1001, General support for the policy approach. No response required. 1106, 1781, 1813, 2194 759 It should be noted in this or in DM50 that this policy also All issues and criteria from policy DM 57 that are relevant to oil and gas are applies to hydrocarbon development. included within the oil and gas policy (DM 50). Additional text has been added to policy DM 57 to state that it does not cover proposals for exploration, appraisal or production of hydrocarbons as this is covered by policy DM 50 oil and gas. 1983, 2509 Overlap and duplication within policy DM 50 and policy DM All issues and criteria from policy DM 57 that are relevant to oil and gas are 57. It should be clarified what each policy relates to – i.e. only included within the oil and gas policy (DM 50). energy minerals or all mineral developments. Additional text has been added to policy DM 57 to state that it does not Policy DM 57 – Proposals for minerals working Question 99 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response cover proposals for exploration, appraisal or production of hydrocarbons as this is covered by policy DM 50 oil and gas. 2253, 2644 Principals relating to agricultural land, soil resources and Reference to agricultural land quality has been removed from policy DM 57 geodiversity should be directly addressed in this policy. and DM 58 as this is already covered by policy STRAT 1 in the Local Plan (Part One). Policy STRAT 1 identifies the need to minimise the loss of high grade agricultural land.

Reference to the conservation of soil resources has been removed from policy DM 57 and DM 58 as this is now covered by policy DM 39 biodiversity and geodiversity.

Reference to agricultural land quality or soil resources is not required in the minerals or oil and gas policies as these issues are covered within other policies in the Local Plan (Part One) and (Part Two) and the plans should be read as a whole.

2573, 2644 Do not support the mandatory requirement within policy for Reference to site liaison committees has been moved to the explanation the establishment of a liaison committee, it is not deliverable. rather than being included within the main policy text. Site liaison committees can only function if local communities wish to engage. Site liaison committees should be encouraged rather than required.

The first bullet point of Policy 57 says “….minerals Reference to the need for minerals developments to be sensitively located development will only be supported if: ……. They are within the landscape has been retained, but additional text has been added sensitively located within the landscape ….”. It may not be to state that this should take account of the operational requirement of the feasible to sensitively locate mineral development since mineral extraction process. Depending upon the extraction method used, minerals can only be worked they occur. Mineral there may be flexibility in the siting of mineral workings, and above ground development proposal can, however, be sensitively designed structures. and mitigated to seek to integrate the site into the landscape. The statement in paragraph 10.33 that ‘mineral working and extraction are Policy DM 57 – Proposals for minerals working Question 99 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response In paragraph 10.333 it states that “… It is recognised that potentially destructive…’ has been removed. mineral working and extraction are potentially destructive …” This is unnecessarily emotive language. Mineral extraction does result in effects on land and potentially on surrounding areas but appropriate design, phasing and mitigation is a key part of an application and on-going development so as to reduce effects to acceptable levels while releasing minerals for use in the manufacture of everyday products.

Policy DM 58 – Restoration of minerals sites Question 100 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 149, 760, Support the policy approach. No response required. 1002, 1107, 1788, 1815, 2196, 2445 The areas of current and potential future sand and gravel Policy DM 58 has been amended to state that opportunities for restoration working lie within the Delamere Forest core area of the to improve or enhance habitats, biodiversity, landscape, historic proposed ecological network for the borough (DM 38). As environment or community use would be maximised. The explanation such they represent significant “green generators” by which identifies that long term benefits from restoration may include: planting of the network can be delivered. The Sandstone Trust urge the trees or hedgerows; sculpting of the land to complement the surrounding Council to include a commitment in policy DM 58 that the landform; additional habitats or nature conservation value; additional priority after-use of these workings will be for nature amenity uses or links to the local public rights of way network; and / or conservation and that they will be restored to habitats which contribution to local ecological networks. will deliver the borough’s strategic ecological network. Policy DM 38 relates specifically to ecological networks and would also be taken into account when assessing applications including reference to restoration of minerals sites. Policy DM 58 – Restoration of minerals sites Question 100 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2574 Objection to the requirement that there will be net gains in Policy DM 58 has been amended to state that opportunities for restoration biodiversity. It is accepted that where appropriate the to improve or enhance habitats, biodiversity, landscape, historic minerals industry should seek to provide biodiversity and environment or community use would be maximised. wider improvements but this will not always be deliverable, primarily due to landowner requirements.

Policy DM 59 – Salt and brine working Question 101 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 150, 761, General support for the policy approach. No response required. 1003, 1108, 1757, 1817

Policy DM 60 – Industrial sand Question 102 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 151, 1776 General support for the policy approach. No response required.

1004, 1109, The option of identifying a safeguarded preferred area for silica Silica sand was not included in the original MSA that was identified in 1823, 2645 sand should be included in the policy. This should be the site at the Local Plan (Part One) as according to the British Geological Survey Newplatt, Rudheath Lodge, Cranage, as submitted to the Minerals data, there are no deposits of silica sand within Cheshire West and Call for Sites. Chester. Since then, data has been provided to indicate that there are deposits of silica sand in the Cranage area, which extend into Cheshire West and Chester. This area cannot be added to the MSA at this stage as this needs to be done through the Local Plan (Part One). However, the relevant area will be allocated for silica sand within policy DM 60, which will help to protect this site for silica sand use.

Policy DM 61 – Minerals infrastructure Question 103 – Do you agree with this approach? If you do not agree please say why and explain what alternative approach should be followed ID Summary of issue raised Council response 762, 1771 General support for the policy approach. No response required. 1005, 1110, The option of an additional study should be undertaken as an A review of the minerals infrastructure study will be undertaken if 1825, 2646 update to the work completed in 2011 and additional sites possible. identified then added to the list. This should be repeated at an appropriate frequency. 2512 There is a conflict between the application of safeguarding Additional text has been added to the explanation to state that some principles in the Local Plan and the permitted development rights of the infrastructure types have permitted development rights and can of wharf operators. In such circumstances safeguarding is undertake specific types of development without needing planning potentially unenforceable. permission. It is not possible to prevent these changes using the planning policy as the policy only relates to relevant development that requires planning permission.

Preferred approach / policies maps: Question 104

Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response General 1378 Support approach in Plan. MEAS will submit Thank you for your response. No change to policy required comments on behalf of Liverpool City Region. 2198 Timescales and timing of consultation are inadequate Consultation will be undertaken in line with the latest SCI 2845 A number of policies are based on former guidance The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with national guidance and the and do not accurately reflect NPPF National Planning Policy Framework. 2627 Plan not sound in current form – does not set out the The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the strategy for development and was adopted in most appropriate strategy and has not considered all January 2015. reasonable alternatives. 196 Comments noted – The policies of the Local Plan (Part Two) for the historic environment are intended to add detail and to set the parameters for the Policies must have clear parameters especially in consideration of development proposals affecting the historic environment and relation to the built and historic environment. The should be read together with other policies of the Plan. scale of the maps are too small Heritage assets are defined in ENV5 and include archaeological sites. The policies maps are being updated as part of the Publication version of the Local Plan. 153 The Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with national guidance and the Plan gives officers too much influence to impose their National Planning Policy Framework, and in consultation with a vast number of views on developers. Too many supplementary stakeholders and local communities. documents require specialist advice which is in short The requirement for certain information to support a planning application ensures supply. The plan does not facilities development but that we achieve high quality, sustainable development that protects our local obstructs it. environments whilst providing sustainable development for our communities. No change to policy required. 2548 Plan not sound in current form – does not set out the The Local Plan (Part One) sets out the strategy for development and was adopted in most appropriate strategy and has not considered all January 2015. reasonable alternatives. 1210 Base map error – Lostock Green is marked as Broken Comment noted. The Council uses the latest version of the OS basemap available at Cross any given time, but will forward this information to Ordnance Survey. 764 Plan should include a list and brief description of the The maps that will accompany the publication plan will be revised so that they are saved policies. easier to use and will be accompanied by a user friendly key / legend. Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Map scale and quality should be improved. The maps that supplemented the Preferred Approach document illustrated the Local Plan should have a final map that integrates all changes that were being proposed and do not show all of the policies e.g. where no polices and boundaries. change has been suggested. Because of the number of policies to be deleted from the retained Local Plans or added to the new Local Plan (Part Two), we have decided to follow the approach in the Local Plan (Part One) Publication Draft and produce a map (or maps where they cover a large geographical area) for each policy. We hope that this will make the changes more easy to understand. The publication plan will be accompanied with a policies map that identifies all of the relevant boundaries, designations and allocations in accordance with the policies in the plan. Regarding comment submission, we appreciate that it can be time-consuming particularly where there are a lot of questions as in the Preferred Approach consultation. You are welcome to attach all comments as one Word/PDF document if this is easier, and we will attach the relevant points to each question. 1975 The Green Belt is clearly identified on the current policies map. The maps that were prepared for the consultation on the Preferred Approach only show proposed For clarity the proposals map should show the Green changes. There are no changes proposed to the Green Belt in the Local Plan (Part Belt Two) therefore the designation was not identified at this stage. The new Countryside allocation is in addition to the existing Green Belt designation. 2484 Because of the number of policies to be deleted from the retained Local Plans or added to the new Local Plan (Part Two), we have decided to follow the approach in Minor amendments to the polices map requested in the Local Plan (Part One) Publication Draft and produce a map (or maps where they relation to specific sites. cover a large geographical area) for each policy. We hope that this will make the changes more easy to understand.

1963 The Green Belt is clearly identified on the current policies map. The maps that were prepared for the consultation on the Preferred Approach only show proposed For clarity the proposals map should show the Green changes. There are no changes proposed to the Green Belt in the Local Plan (Part Belt Two) therefore the designation was not identified at this stage. The new Countryside allocation is in addition to the existing Green Belt designation. Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Housing 1883 Reference needed to Starter Homes / small site The policies in the plan are in accordance with the NPPF at the time of writing and exemptions (affordable housing) / Vacant building will take in to account changes to national policy and guidance when made to ensure credit the plan is sound. Gypsy and Travellers 1517 Approach to identifying sites is not supported. Plan process should only identify sufficient sites to Please see Local Plan Working report dated 24th July 2017 meet number of pitches required Infrastructure 174 National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance Thank you for your comments and support. The Council will continue to liaise with all to the Council to help ensure continued safe key stakeholders during the preparation of the Local Plan and relevant planning operation of existing sites and equipment and to documents facilitate future infrastructure investment. Waterways 2367 The Trusts comments on the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Thank you for your comments. The specific issues affecting the borough’s waterways Detailed Policies are therefore focussed on ensuring are addressed through the responses to other policies in the plan, specifically DM37 that the importance and multifunctional nature of its recreational routeways and DM38 waterways and mooring facilities. assets are acknowledged and provided for in the policies and proposals of the Plan. 93 Please refer to comments on policy DM37 recreational routeways and DM38 The Trust would like to see waterways identified waterways and mooring facilities. Key and Local Service Centres 1517 Promotion of Frodsham as a key service centre. Frodsham household waste recycling centre (Station Please Local Plan Working Group report dated 23rd January 2017 car park). Mill Lane, Frodsham - proposed site for household waste recycling Settlement boundaries 1219 Ashton Hayes settlement boundary should be Ashton Hayes is washed over Green Belt. The proposed site (Village Farm) has amended to include additional land (as identified) planning permission for the conversion of farm buildings to residential Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response within the boundary (16/02070/FUL). The rural buildings with planning permission which are distinctly separated from the core of the village by a road. Amend the boundary adjacent to the southern extent of the settlement to accommodate planning permission (14/01865/FUL). 1216 No change - The extent of the Green Belt is a strategic matter and is defined in Local Plan (Part One) policy STRAT 9. No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do Christleton settlement boundary should be amended come forward must be in accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not to include additional land (as identified) within the impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs boundary where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. 2887 No change to the Preferred Approach boundary – It is not intended to allocate any additional sites adjacent to LSCs through the Local Plan (Part Two). Sites which do come forward must be in accordance with the Local Plan (Part One) which does not impose levels of development on LSCs. Development should come forward at LSCs Tilston settlement boundary should be amended to where it is for rural exception housing or a community land trust development include land at School Farm within the boundary (site where supported by the Parish Council; where it is brought forward through a referred to in representation Part2PA_2650). Neighbourhood Development Order or a Community Right to Build Order or it is allocated in a made Neighbourhood Development Plan. Settlement boundaries have been drawn around the core built envelope of a LSC using physical and natural features. Allocations / site reps 255 The approach to land allocations has been reviewed and is set out in the revised Part Two treats housing figures as a maximum and not Housing and Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. The housing as a minimum and incorrectly suggests no further requirements set out in Local plan (Part One) are clearly referenced as being allocations. minimum figures and the land allocations proposed will achieve these figures. 2506 Strategy of no allocations and proposed settlement The approach to land allocations has been reviewed and is set out in the revised boundaries restricts delivery of new housing. Housing and Employment Land Allocations Background Paper. The housing Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Lack of developable brownfield sites therefore requirements set out in Local plan (Part One) are clearly referenced as being greenfield sites have had to be identified. Plan should minimum figures and the land allocations proposed will achieve these figures identify land allocations. Neighbourhood Planning 2788 Preparation of the Local Plan has taken account of neighbourhood plans and as far as possible the plan policies are consistent with specific neighbourhood plan policies. Greater emphasis should be given to Neighbourhood Neighbourhood plans which have successfully progressed through referendum will Plans and make clear where a NP takes precedent. be given full development plan weight in decision making. In accordance with national guidance, where there is any conflict in policy (which we have tried to avoid) then the most up to date plan will take precedent. 2513 Support Neighbourhood Plans Support noted. Thank you for your comments 2070 Ashton Hayes NP – in general the draft policies strengthen and support the neighbourhood plan Support noted. Thank you for your comments policies. Transport 17 Dual path for cyclists and pedestrians across Comment noted. While policy T 5 seeks to secure measures enabling cyclists and Grosvenor Bridge needed (pleased to see pedestrians to access new development sites, a specific scheme such as this would consideration for permanent cycling bridge on Hoole more readily be identified within the Chester Transport Strategy, rather than the Road) Local Plan. 30 New bus station is remote from city centre key Comment noted. Revised policy T 5 sets out requirements for the provision of locations. Car charging points at many locations across electric vehicle charging points within new developments, which forms part of a the city will be essential with the increase in use of wider strategy being developed as part of the Council’s Low Emissions Strategy. HS2 electric / plug-in hybrid cars is a very long-term project that will not be delivered until after this plan period. Local Plan needs to address rail connectivity arising However, the Council is working extensively in collaboration with key rail industry from HS2. Opportunities to connect Mid-Cheshire to stakeholders and TfN, for improvement to all rail and transport services and HS2 station at Manchester Airport. How will the infrastructure within the borough and surrounding regions. Council interact with Transport for the North. 2226 Comment noted. Revised policy T 5 – Parking and access seeks to ensure that Request a policy that promotes safe routes to school measures to allow for safe access to and within development sites for all road users for pedestrians and cyclists. including pedestrians and cyclists are provided in new developments (including new schools). Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2639 Comment noted. The Local Plan seeks to protect residential areas from unacceptable impacts on amenity from traffic (and in particular heavy goods Welcome further engagement with the Council. vehicles) generated by new developments, rather than existing business operations. Wish to ensure highways and access restrictions on The wording for policy T 6 has been amended to make it clear that mitigation commercial vehicles do not impact on efficiency of measures can be agreed between the Council and the developer, to prevent the operations. issue from arising. The Royal Mail will continue to be consulted at future consultation stages in the Local Plan process. Air quality 2900 It can be demonstrated that greenhouse gases associated with fugitive emissions will not lead to Comment noted. While policy T 5 seeks to secure measures enabling cyclists and unacceptable adverse environmental impacts. Should pedestrians to access new development sites, a specific scheme such as this would be noted fugitive methane is significantly more potent more readily be identified within the Chester Transport Strategy, rather than the as a greenhouse gas when compared with c02. Local Plan. Commitments to climate change targets should be mentioned 2562 Comment noted. Revised policy T 5 sets out requirements for the provision of electric vehicle charging points within new developments, which forms part of a wider strategy being developed as part of the Council’s Low Emissions Strategy. HS2 “Measurable increase” is not defined therefore policy is a very long-term project that will not be delivered until after this plan period. is ambiguous However, the Council is working extensively in collaboration with key rail industry stakeholders and TfN, for improvement to all rail and transport services and infrastructure within the borough and surrounding regions. 1451, 2684 Comment noted. Revised policy T 5 – Parking and access seeks to ensure that Monitoring needed on a wider scale particularly near measures to allow for safe access to and within development sites for all road users Ince recycling centre. including pedestrians and cyclists are provided in new developments (including new schools). 2759 Comment noted. The policy explanation refers to designated Air Quality Frodsham needs more mitigation Management Areas (AQMAs), including Fluin Lane in Frodsham and the Council is currently in the process of preparing an action plan for this AQMA. 2722 Tattenhall and District Parish Council support policy Comment noted. No change necessary. DM23 Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Open space 1568 The Local Plan includes policies relating to wind energy, waste facilities and minerals development and seeks to steer development proposals to maximise benefits in line with the needs of the borough and national guidance and minimise adverse impacts. In order to protect the borough’s biodiversity and geodiversity, the Local Plan Concern regarding: wind turbines; waste disposal requires that development does not cause a net loss in natural assets and seeks to incinerators; fracking; loss of trees and wildlife; provide net gains. Policy DM37 seeks to protect and where possible enhance the accessibility of footpaths; littering; matter spread on network of recreational routeways, including footpaths. The Local Plan steers the agricultural land; harm to the countryside. type and location of development in order to protect the character of the countryside which is a strategic objective of the Local Plan. Issues relating to illegal dumping of litter and the matter spread on agricultural land are governed by environmental health regulations that operate outside the Local Plan. 2227 The Local Plan is underpinned by a vision for development which conserves, manages and enhances the borough’s valuable natural and historical environment resources and assets. This recognises and incorporates historic, environmental and aesthetic character within the overall value of the borough’s environment. Should recognise the combined significance of The Sustainability Appraisal process has informed policy development and ensures historic, environment and aesthetic character and not that each policy is considered against a range of criteria including biodiversity, limit environment value to single criterion and specific landscape and cultural heritage. designations. Policy GBC2 Protection of Landscape has been amended to highlight that all of the borough’s landscapes are important, and that whilst Areas of Special Country Value (ASCV) are identified for their special landscape and scenic value, natural and cultural features contribute to their overall value. Minerals / Waste 2514 The maps that supplemented the Preferred Approach document illustrated the changes that were being proposed and do not show all of the policies e.g. where no Waste management capacity and facilities should be change has been suggested. shown on the policies map (as stated in ENV 8). The three major safeguarded waste management facilities (Ince Park, Lostock and Safeguarded areas should also be added. Kinderton Lodge) are mapped on the current policies map under Local Plan (Part One) policy ENV 8. As there are no proposed changes to these, they were not included on the preferred approach maps. As stated in policy STRAT8, other built Question 104 – Do you have any other comments on the preferred approach or policies map? ID Summary of issue raised Council response waste management facilities and existing landfill capacity are listed in the Waste Needs Assessment, it is not considered necessary to identify those on the policies map. 1767 SPD for unconventional extraction of oil and gas An oil and gas exploration, production and distribution Supplementary Planning needed. Document was adopted by the Council on 5 May 2017.

Evidence base: Question 105

Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Land allocations / Site representations 90, 204, 247, Site promotion: The Council has considered site submissions / promotional material 2000, 1897,  Pear Tree Farm, Saughall (90) during the preparation of the Housing and Economic Land 2180, 2011,  Brooklea, Duddon Road, Duddon, Tarporley (204) Availability Assessment (HELAA) and amended site assessments, 2202, 2195,  The Beaches, Saughall constraints and delivery information where appropriate. 2052, 2075,  Brickfield Farm, Tarporley (2000) The HELAA has been used to prepare the Land Allocations 2145, 2281,  Townfield Lane, Farndon (2000) Background Paper which sets out the Councils approach to making 2300, 2301,  Land at Linnards Lane, Wincham (1897) allocations for housing and employment land, and identifies 2304, 2634,  School Lane, Hartford (2240) potential sites. 2637, 2638,  Imperial Park, Winnington (2180) 2259, 2299,  Church Street, Tarvin (2011) 2328, 2463,  Land off Rode Street, Tarporley (2202 / 2882) 2420, 2586,  Land adjacent Mere’s Edge. Helsby (2195) 2255, 2333,  Niddries Lane, Moulton (2052) 2386, 2448,  Sites WIC/0043 and WIC/0050 should be updated to reflect 2527, 2538, representation (2075) 2549, 2889,  2876, 2687, Black Diamond Street / Hoole Way, Chester (2145) 2871, 2850,  Land west of Bradford Road, Winsford (2281) 2882, 2879,  Greenlands, Tattenhall (2281) 2888, 2852,  Land south of Bickley Lane, No Mans Heath (2281) 2680, 2681,  Winnington Wood, Northwich (2300) 2689  Cookes Lane, Northwich (2301)  Land at Griffiths Park, Northwich (2304)  Land at Wincham Industrial Estate (2634 / 2638 / 2637)  West of Lloyd Drive, Cheshire Oaks (2259)  Lime Tree Farmhouse Paddock, Stanney Lane (2259)  Holmes Chapel Road, Middlewich (2299 / 2889) Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response  Tattenhall Road, Tattenhall (2328)  Booston Oil Depot site, Ellesmere Port (2463)  Blakemere Village (2420)  RBL site, High Street, Tarporley (2586)  Monument Farm, Farndon (2255)  Land off Whitchurch Road, Christleton (2333)  Middlewich Road, Winsford (2386)  Land at Faulkners Lane, Christleton (2448)  Land north of School Lane, Guilden Sutton (2527, 2538)  Tilstone Lodeg, Tarporley (2549)  Bypass Bridge, Hartford (2876)  Darnhall School Lane, Winsford (2687)  Land south west of Gadbrook Park / King Street (2871 / 2879)  Land off Manchester Road, Lostock Gralam (2850)  Land at School Farm, Tilston (2888)  Land at Crewe Lane, Farndon (2852)  240 Manchester Road, Lostock Gralam (2680)  Land at London Road, Davenham (2681)  Land off Winkwell Drive, Chester (2689) 834, 835 Land allocations process is flawed as there is no assessment of Please see Local Plan Working Group reports dated 26th June 2017 delivery of student accommodation, and no impact assessment and 24th July 2017. 2054 UU wishes to work closely with the Local Authority and will Thank you for your comments and continued input in to the process better understand impacts of development as more information of Local Plan preparation. is available. Further information on land allocations, and specifically the revised All proposed land allocations should have due regard to location proposals for housing land allocations, has been provided, we will of UU assets and master plan each site accordingly continue to liaise with the all our key stakeholders to ensure that polices are based on up to date and relevant evidence. 2225 All significant derelict, unused and neglected land should be The Council will be preparing a Brownfield Land Register that will be identified with a proposed use. published in accordance with the National Planning Guidance. Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response 2084, 2088 Object to development / planning application at Crossfields / The Local Plan (Part One) and relevant retained policies will be used Townfield Lane, Tarvin to determine current planning applications. Concerns relating to individual planning applications can be raised through the Development Management planning application consultation process. Housing / residential development 2593 Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement is a minimum and The Land Allocations Background Paper sets out the employment although not questioning the land supply there is a need to and housing land supply position and identifies, where applicable, maintain supply throughout the plan period. The council should any shortfall in land requirements. The Local Plan housing enable sustainable housing development in the rural area. requirement is a minimum figure and the polices in Part One and the Preferred Approach continue to support the development of new housing in sustainable locations in accordance with the strategy of the plan. 2544, 2503, Lack of evidence to suggest that the commitments and strategic The housing completions include all elements of self-contained 2504, 2507 sites will meet residual housing requirement. A proper housing supply as set out in the Local Plan (Part One) and supported assessment of delivery of commitments is required - this is through examination note ED112. The type of housing provision for missing from the HELAA. Completions include student each individual site is set out in the housing land monitor and annual accommodation and extra care housing which overstates total monitoring reports. completions. It is unclear what proportion of future housing The future developable supply of housing is set out and evidenced in supply is student accommodation and extra care housing. the HELAA and for sites with planning permission, delivery The Council should ensure a healthy land supply is maintained forecasting and evidence is set out in the Housing Land Monitor throughout the plan period either through allocating land or which is updated annually to ensure a robust and up to date flexible policies. evidence base for housing supply. Housing supply should be increased to meet the level of The plan makes provision for land allocations where required to affordable housing need. meet the Local Plan (Part One) housing requirement, and additional policies in the plan allow for housing delivery above the minimum requirement. Neighbourhood Plans may also plan for additional housing, and the Councils Brownfield Land Register will promote sustainable use of sites. The Local Plan (Part One) has full consideration for the overall level Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response of affordable housing need, and the SHMA informed policy to deliver affordable housing across the borough. 2877 Too meet the housing requirement in Northwich, additional land The approach to land allocations in Northwich has been reviewed should be identified and allocated. and land allocations to meet the residual housing requirement have been proposed. Employment land 2075 Do not support Winnington Business Park – lack of flexibility to Comment noted. Please refer to the Council’s response to comments provide a mix of uses. Policy DM2 does not promote sustainable on policy DM2 (now DM5) protection and refurbishment of development employment land and premises. 2145, 2177 Object to employment land allocation at Black Diamond Street / Employment and housing land allocations have been reviewed Hoole Way, Chester – lack of demand for employment use at this through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment location. Allocation should be revised to allow wider mix of uses (HELAA, 2017) and the Land Allocations Paper (2017). Please see Local Plan Working Group Report dated 24th July 2017. 2630 Chowley Oak Business Park boundary is incorrect. Northern Comment noted. Chowley Oak is a rural business park. It is identified section is shown as STRAT 9 countryside. as an employment land allocation for the rural area in line with STRAT8. 2463 Council’s claimed employment land commitments are at least Employment and housing land allocations have been reviewed 27.14ha lower than evidence suggests. Ellesmere Port is an area through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment of strong employment demand and appropriate to meet the (HELAA, 2017) and the Land Allocations Paper (2017). Please see shortfall. Local Plan Working Group Report dated 24th July 2017. 2255 Support proposed employment land allocation at Monument Comments noted. Employment and housing land allocations have Farm, Farndon. been reviewed through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA, 2017) and the Land Allocations Paper (2017). Please see Local Plan Working Group Report dated 24th July 2017. 2323 Challenge some of the assumptions and conclusions in BE Group Employment and housing land allocations have been reviewed Land Supply Study in relation to West King Street site Urban through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment sprawl / greenfield site / dismissal of Longwood, Octel / Traffic (HELAA, 2017) and the Land Allocations Paper (2017). Please see flow and congestion / suitability of A530 / impact on Davenham Local Plan Working Group Report dated 24th July 2017. Please refer village / compromising Northwich Vision / impact on residential to comments on draft policy N2 Employment land provision in properties) Northwich. Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpersons 2275 LEB2-105 Study to Identify Potential Gypsy and Traveller, Please see Local Plan Working Group report dated 24th July 2017. Travelling Show Persons and Transit Sites - Concerns regarding consultation and disagree with suggested sites as they conflict with suitability. Key service centres / Local service centres / Settlement boundaries 204, 2000, Suggested amendments to settlement boundaries: Please see Council’s response to policy R1, R2 which considers 1897, 2292,  Duddon (843) proposed amendments to the settlement boundaries of key and 2366, 2410  Tarporley (2000 / 2410) local service centres.  Farndon (2000)  Wincham (1897)  Winsford, Map Change 8 (2292)  No Mans Heath (2292)  Tattenhall (2292 / 2366)  Christleton (2333) 247 Saughall should be designated as a key service centre, but Saughall is bound by the Green Belt and as such is restricted in support its designation as a local service centre if not respect of physical growth. The level of services and its location in appropriate. relation to Chester however mean that the settlement is sustainable and supports the immediate population as a local service centre. No change to policy required 518 Assessment of Local Service Centres does not consider public The need to identify local service centres stems from the transport. No consideration of rural rider and flexible shuttle requirement to implement the strategy of the Local Plan (Part One) service. Some settlements are not in the list but have good public Strategic Policies (Part One Plan), which is based on focusing most transport. new development in and adjacent to the four urban areas and Methodology now allows for previously unsustainable steering development in the rural area primarily to key service settlements to be classed as sustainable. centres which represent the most sustainable locations in the rural Methodology is not sound as it is not based on credible robust area. Outside of these areas, a limited level of development will also evidence. be brought forward in smaller rural settlements to be known as local service centres which have adequate services and facilities and Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response access to public transport. This approach to selecting settlements with a certain level of sustainable services and facilities enables new development to maximise the use of existing infrastructure and reduce the need to travel. The strategy has been established through the Local Plan (Part One). The use of public transport to assess the sustainability of settlements reflects the strategy of the Local Plan (Part One), particularly policies STRAT1, STRAT2 and STRAT8. The assessment of bus services has included access to the Rural Rider service. Settlements with no access to public transport or with access to only one of the services and facilities are considered to be unsuitable for consideration as a local service centre. These settlements would have such an inadequate level of existing services that even the limited scale of development which would be allowed in local service centres would not constitute sustainable development and would be contrary to national policy and the Part One Plan. 880 Parish Council support protection of district and local retail Comments noted. centres and community facilities. Environment 1852 Not clear how evidence base i.e Ecological Network for Cheshire Please refer to comments on draft policy DM38 Ecological Networks. West and Chester, will be used to inform and guide development. Minerals / Waste 1437 Chester sewage disposal facilities are inadequate and outdated Welsh Water are investing in Chester Wastewater Treatment Works and need to be moved to Dee Estuary area of Chester (WwTW) to provide additional capacity to accommodate growth identified for Chester within the adopted Local Plan (Part One). 1743 Policy indicates that shale gas extraction would not add to the The appraisal of policy DM50 'Oil and gas development' appraises economic development of the Borough and was not likely to have the situation with the policy, compared to the situation any significant effect to climate change targets. without. Economic development has been screened out as the policy is not considered to have a significant impact. This does not Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response mean that oil and gas development will not have any impact on economic development. I does identify that the policy will have a positive impact on climate change and energy as it promotes environmentally preferable alternatives to road travel and requires that fugitive emissions do not have unacceptable environmental impacts. Map changes / Process and procedure / General comments 880 Proposed policies refer to areas not shown on Map change 5 e.g. Open spaces were shown on map change 11 as an update to Local CH1 open space corridors / existing open spaces Plan (Part One) policy SOC 6. Existing open spaces were on map change 1 (as all are to be deleted and replaced by new SOC 6). 1437 Strongly object to the consultation process / presentation of The online consultation facility is just one way that you can submit documents (facilities for commenting / no spell checks / no page comments – we also accept comments by post or email – however it indicators) can be very useful as it enables you to keep track of all your comments on various different consultations. Uncertain what is meant by “no page indicators” but we can pass on feedback regarding the spell check facility to our system providers. Currently they suggest that for multiple comments consultees may find it easier to type everything into a word processing program (e.g. Word) initially and then copy and paste into individual comments. You are also welcome to attach all comments as one Word/PDF document if this is easier, and we will attach the relevant points to each question. 1743 Many unsupported comments made in the plan and a lack of The Local Plan is supported by a proportionate evidence base. A detail, with no supporting evidence base. Local Plan is independently examined and must be found sound in order for the Council to be able to progress to adoption. 2099 Map errors Tarporley conservation area (Page 42) Conservation area boundaries are provided by the conservation  errors along Forest Road, Park Road and High Street; team and on the interactive map, updates will be shown as they are  two recreation areas have been omitted made. We will pass on the comments regarding the errors to them.  NP protected green spaces not shown on map Neighbourhood Plan allocations were not shown on the Preferred Approach maps but we will consider how best to illustrate them in Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response the Publication Draft maps. 2292 Map Change 9 – electronic version is not based on detailed OS Because of the number of policies to be deleted from the retained base and is not legible. Local Plans or added to the new Local Plan (Part Two), we have decided to follow the approach in the Local Plan (Part One) Publication Draft and produce a map (or maps where they cover a large geographical area) for each policy. We hope that this will make the changes more easy to understand. Sustainability Appraisal / Habitats Regulations Assessment 1444 Sustainability Assessment refers to the need to consider The Sustainability Appraisal includes an appraisal of potential employment land at Middlewich but makes no reference to employment sites and reasonable alternatives, including some sites housing land. It requires amendment on this basis. near Middlewich and Winsford. However, the Local Plan (Part Two) identifies that given the allocation of sites in Winsford for housing development within the Winsford Neighbourhood Plan and the current housing supply situation in the rural area and key service centres there is no need to make additional allocations through the Local Plan (Part Two). The Sustainability Appraisal provides a summary of the individual appraisals of each policy and as the policies do not allocate or refer to housing land near Middlewich, the Sustainability Appraisal does not refer to housing land near Middlewich. 2254 Draft HRA – new development should enhance and protect SA Objective 3 is 'to protect and enhance the borough's biodiversity surface and ground water quality and not cause deterioration in and wildlife habitats'. As set out in the SA Scoping Report, the status of inland waters. appraisal criteria / sub-objectives for this objective are: "will it Would like to see further evidence to support suggested policy protect and promote effective management of the borough's sites of wording and highlight recommendation in HRA conclusion (page ecological and nature conservation importance?', 'will it provide 70). Site specific issues (as set out in detailed representation) opportunities for the enhancement and creation of habitats and to foster species conservation, diversity and resilience to climate change?' and 'will it maintain, enhance and increase (rural and urban) tree cover and woodlands?'. The impact of each policy has been considered. Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response SA objective 12 relates to protecting and enhancing landscape and townscape and the sub-objectives refer to protecting landscapes and provision of open space. As such, it is considered that green infrastructure and ecosystems are sufficiently covered by the appraisal objectives. Remaining uncertainties and negative impacts will be explored in the next iteration of the SA to identify avoidance and / or mitigation measures where possible. The potential to refer to ANGSt requirements within the SA monitoring indicators will be reviewed. 2243 Question SA outcomes for policy DM 50 and how the Local The Sustainability Appraisal assesses the impact of the policy and Authority will enforce this policy. A review of available evidence compares the situation with the policy, to the situation without the would change assessments for water. Air, climate change and policy. The appraisal of policy DM50 'Oil and gas development' energy form positive to negative. assesses the impact of the policy, not the impact of oil and gas development. Appendix A of the SA report states that the policy is considered to have positive effects, for example on climate change in terms of promotion of environmentally preferable alternatives to road travel and positive impacts on land and resources by promoting development on the least environmentally sensitive locations - this is compared to the situation without this policy. The policy is considered to have very positive impacts (when compared to the situation without the policy) on cultural heritage as it promotes the consideration of landscape character assessments and encourages appropriate screening, finishing and colour, and also requires high-quality and appropriate after use and restoration. The policy is considered to have very positive impacts on community safety, for example by ensuring that unavoidable dust and particle emissions, noise, vibration and illuminations are controlled so as not to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity. 2520 Draft plan policies should be amended to include draft HRA The recommendations made in the draft HRA have been taken into recommendations as set out in paragraph 17.1.3 (page 70) account in the draft Publication policies. An additional HRA of these Question 105 – Do you have any other comments on the supporting evidence base, including the draft Sustainability Appraisal and draft Habitat Regulations Assessment? ID Summary of issue raised Council response policies will be undertaken and the policies will be amended further if required before publication, as part of the iterative process. 2901 SA includes specific objective to protect land and soil quality but Any omissions relating to soil quality will have been identified soil is not mentioned in the detailed policies. This should be through the Sustainability Appraisal process and in the Interim included and clearly cross referenced to the SA. Sustainability Report. The recommendations made in the Interim Sustainability Report have been taken into account in the draft Publication policies. An additional Sustainability Appraisal of these policies will be undertaken and the policies will be amended further if required before publication, as part of the iterative process. CIL 2579 Concerns regarding deliverability of CIL for Chester and rural area. Preparation of CIL involved production of economic viability information for the borough, including the rural area in order to test likely impacts of CIL on scheme deliverability. The Councils proposed CIL charging schedule and background information were subject to several rounds of consultation and public examination by an independent Examiner. The Examiner concluded that, subject to modification, the Charging Schedule provides an appropriate basis for the collection of the levy in Cheshire West and Chester. The Charging Schedule and associated documents were approved by full Council in July and CIL charges commenced on 1 September 2017.