Economic growth, employment and enterprise
Question EG 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards economic growth, employment and enterprise, as set out in EG 1 'Economic growth, employment and enterprise' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
54 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for EG1 policy | A broad range of respondents simply confirm support for the suggested policy approach without requesting changes. These comments form the baseline level of endorsement for EG1, expressing approval of its general direction, aims, and principles. |
| Historic environment and local character | Respondents call for strong protection of heritage assets, local identity, settlement character and the setting of historic towns. Several emphasise that character contributes to tourism and community wellbeing and must inform all employment land decisions. |
| Support for small businesses, Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and local economies | Comments stress the need for flexible, affordable workspace; protection of small business ecosystems; and economic diversity in towns and rural settlements. The changing nature of work—remote working, digital connectivity—is presented as requiring adaptable employment policies. |
| Employment Land Strategy (Mix, Flexibility, Supply) | Respondents highlight the importance of providing a balanced mix of employment land types (large units, Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), strategic sites) and ensuring flexibility to respond to market changes. Concerns include preventing excessive loss of employment land, addressing rural employment gaps, and ensuring allocations reflect real need rather than speculative developer interest. |
| Transport, strategic road network capacity & HGV impacts | Several comments highlight significant transport concerns relating to major roads (M56/M53), freight movement, and HGV traffic. They emphasise early engagement with National Highways, the need for transport assessments, and mitigation for safety, capacity, and environmental impacts. |
| Brownfield first, avoiding greenfield/Green Belt loss | Strong support emerges for a brownfield-first approach, with several respondents opposing new Green Belt or rural employment allocations unless absolutely necessary. Concerns include loss of village character, environmental impacts, and cumulative development pressures. |
| Climate change, net zero and Low-Carbon Industrial Strategy | Comments emphasise integrating climate goals into economic policy, including net-zero commitments, clean growth industries, circular economy principles, industrial decarbonisation (e.g., hydrogen, carbon capture and storage), and sustainable freight. Strategic infrastructure such as HyNet and the Manchester Ship Canal are highlighted as key assets. |
| Strategic sites and location-specific proposals | Multiple stakeholders describe site-specific opportunities, often promoting land they control. These include large industrial clusters, mixed-use redevelopment zones, expansion land for major employers, and cross-boundary strategic sites. They argue these sites contribute meaningfully to employment supply and strategic economic growth. |
| Tourism, waterways and canal-based economy | Respondents highlight the importance of waterways, canals, and related tourism sectors. A key message is safeguarding waterside employment uses and recognising leisure and recreation-based economies as legitimate parts of the employment strategy. |
| Modern work practices and digital connectivity | Comments focus on the increasing prevalence of remote working, hybrid models, and digital infrastructure. They highlight the need for planning policies that are flexible and future-proof to accommodate changing business location requirements. |
| Infrastructure capacity, utilities and viability | Several submissions stress that infrastructure capacity including water, wastewater, utilities, and the cost of brownfield remediation must shape employment policy. They warn that requirements such as Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) may impact viability in industrial areas, especially on heavily engineered or previously developed sites. |
| Retail, town centres and mixed-use regeneration | Respondents highlight the role of town centres in economic vitality and argue for mixed-use regeneration, including small-scale office space and residential development to support footfall, vitality, and business resilience. |
| Opposition to large warehousing / distribution centres | Some comments oppose an over-reliance on large logistics/warehouse developments, citing unsustainable HGV impacts, limited local employment benefits, and conflict with town character and local priorities. They encourage a more nuanced mix of employment types. |
Question EG 2
Do you agree these are the key strategic employment locations that need to be protected? Are there any others to be added?
28 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for identified strategic employment locations | Many respondents fully support the continued designation and protection of the key strategic employment sites such as Chester Business Park, Gadbrook Park, and Cheshire Oaks. These locations are seen as vital for the local economy and require safeguarding. |
| Conditions, caveats, or nuanced support | Support is often qualified with conditions: under-utilised sites may need repurposing; employment sites should remain protected from residential encroachment; biodiversity assets such as Hob Hey Wood must be protected; Frodsham’s economic character must be considered; infrastructure upgrades must support connections from smaller settlements. |
| Objections to specific strategic locations | Some respondents object to continued safeguarding of Gadbrook Business Park, suggesting a flexible masterplan-led approach allowing a mix of uses instead of strict employment protection. |
| Advocacy for additional or alternative strategic locations | Respondents propose recognising additional employment areas including land near Midpoint 18, clean growth hubs like Ellesmere Port, smaller retail parks contributing to employment needs, and greenfield expansion potential at Neston/Parkgate. |
| Broader planning principles and strategic commentary | Two comments emphasise the need to integrate employment with housing, transport and skills, avoiding unnecessary greenfield logistics development, and ensuring strategic sites support high-quality jobs. |
Question EG 3
Should established employment areas, to meet a range of sizes and types of business/industry needs, be designated on the policies map? If so should this include the full range of areas identified in the Employment Areas Survey 2024?
24 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for the designation of employment areas | Respondents broadly support showing established employment areas on the policies map. Reasons include clarity for applicants, certainty for businesses, and preventing gradual loss of employment land. These comments generally provide agreement without additional detail. |
| Support with conditions / flexibility for redevelopment | One respondent supports designation but emphasise the need for flexibility, particularly allowing redevelopment of existing employment land for housing where appropriate. They prefer designation not to prevent positive regeneration opportunities. |
| Comments on question framing / policy clarity | One respondent challenges the way the question is framed, noting it appears leading and seeks clarity on rationale for inclusion or exclusion. |
| Safeguards against loss of employment land to housing | One respondent raises concerns about “banking” employment land and changing it to highervalue housing later. They argue designation must be accompanied by strong policies preventing loss of employment land to speculative residential proposals. |
| Environmental and local sensitivity considerations | One respondent highlighted the need to exclude sensitive areas such as biodiversity corridors and Hob Hey Wood (Frodsham) from designation boundaries. Further that designation must be carefully drawn to avoid harm to ecological assets and prevent Green Belt encroachment. |
| Local evidencebased context (e.g., Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan) | One respondent references local neighbourhood planning evidence suggesting only appropriatescale employment uses should be supported (e.g., light industry, not large warehousing). Designation should reflect local character and evidence. |
| Strategic economic redevelopment and brownfield opportunities | One comment stresses the importance of safeguarding brownfield land—particularly from closed industrial sites for future employment development, ensuring longterm economic resilience. |
| Expanding employment areas to include logical adjacent sites | A detailed submission argues for including undeveloped sites adjacent to existing employment areas as sustainable extensions. For example, land at Chester Way next to Denton Drive Industrial Estate, Northwich (N03) is proposed for inclusion, despite being in the Green Belt. |
| Need for clear policy mapping to support investment | One respondent comments that clear visual designation helps businesses plan and invest confidently, and reduces piecemeal erosion of employment uses. |
Question EG 4
Should the policy approach safeguard out of town office locations for office use, or take a more flexible approach?
23 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for safeguarding outoftown office space | Respondents argue that outoftown office parks remain important for economic growth, accommodating sectors that value car access, highquality business park environments, and clustering benefits. Safeguarding helps retain employment floorspace and supports the Local Plan’s economic strategy. |
| Conditional support (safeguard subject to policy criteria) | Some respondents neither fully support nor oppose safeguarding, but request criteria-based policies such as proving demand evidence, ensuring sustainability, mitigating transport impacts, or protecting only highperforming business parks. |
| Opposition to safeguarding – towncentre first or flexible approach | Some respondents argue safeguarding undermines towncentre vitality, increases car dependency, and contributes to sprawl. They prefer flexible policies allowing repurposing of underused office blocks and emphasise the need for sustainable, towncentre–focused development. |
| Balanced / mixed approach | One respondent accepts the role of strategic outoftown business parks but emphasises the need to prioritise towncentre office development while safeguarding only key sites. |
| Minimal or No Clear Position | Comments provide little detail or offer no clear position for or against safeguarding. |
Question EG 5
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards the protection of employment land or premises?
27 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for protecting employment land/premises | Broad and consistent support for protecting employment premises and land, often without additional commentary. Respondents generally support EG5 and recognise the need to maintain employment supply. |
| Rural employment and preventing loss of local facilities | One respondent emphasises the importance of retaining rural employment, retail and office uses to prevent the decline of rural services and reduce additional car travel. |
| Support with flexibility / avoiding dereliction | Two respondents support protection but stress the need for practical flexibility e.g., allowing repurposing where viable to avoid dereliction, but with safeguards to prevent misuse. Includes views on avoiding overprotection of undeliverable sites. |
| Enforcement conditions for redevelopment to nonemployment uses | One respondent states that support is conditional on strong evidence requirements before allowing nonemployment uses e.g., proven longterm vacancy, no impact on employment capacity, and demonstrable regeneration needs. |
| Neighbourhood Plan and environmental constraints (Frodsham / Hob Hey Wood) | One respondent highlights Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan priorities to retain employment unless unviable, avoid creating dormitory settlements, prevent encroachment into sensitive woodland (Hob Hey), prefer affordable housing where employment uses are truly redundant, and resist speculative conversions. |
| Parish Council Position | One Parish Council response states that they support the overall policy approach to protecting employment land and premises. |
| Agent of change principle | One respondent suggests that alternative uses on employment land should explicitly apply the “agent of change” principle when assessing impacts. |
| Developer / landowner perspectives on deliverability and market flexibility | One respondent supports protection only where sites are realistically deliverable; advocates flexibility for complementary uses; strongly opposes residential development in outoftown office areas. |
| Objection or nonsupport | Either opposes the policy (refers back to earlier objections) or makes no comment at this stage. |
| Sitespecific representation – Middlewich (residentialled development) | One respondent argues that a site with mixeduse consent should be allocated for residentialled mixed use; states it would not undermine employment supply; emphasises sustainable location and need for flexibility to allow nonemployment uses in policy. |
| Support with no detail | One respondent expresses support with no additional explanation. |
Question EG 6
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards local labour and skills?
12 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support / agreement | Some respondents generally indicate support for the proposed policy approach without providing further detail. |
| Support for EG6 – local labour & skills (general) | Clear endorsement of including labour and skills requirements in the Local Plan, particularly for major developments. |
| Local labour & skills – detailed / evidencebased input | One respondent includes a detailed justification for requiring labour and skills agreements, linking to neighbourhood priorities, environmental skills, and national context. References youth opportunities, green skills, national policy direction, academic evidence, and recommends mandatory labour & skills agreements. |
| Higher education & research as economic drivers | One respondent highlights the role of higher education and research facilities as drivers of growth and suggests including higher education in employment land allocations. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.