Town centres
Question TC 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards town centres, as set out above in TC 1 'Town centres'? If not, please suggest how it could be amended?
35 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Overall support for town-centre-first approach | Strong overall support for Policy TC1, with respondents agreeing that town centres should be protected and strengthened, while recognising that delivery will require flexibility, affordability, and proactive management. |
| Impact of out-of-town retail development | Respondents raise concern that out-of-town and edge-of-centre retail, particularly large retail parks, undermines existing town centres, increases car dependency, and should be more tightly controlled or resisted. |
| Northwich – regeneration | Northwich is frequently cited as requiring a fundamental rethink, with suggestions to refocus the town centre towards leisure, reduce rents, improve public transport, and deliver comprehensive regeneration rather than piecemeal change. |
| Chester – vacancy and retail strategy | Some comments argue that the current strategy for Chester has not been successful, highlighting long-term vacant large units and calling for renewed focus on the Rows, smaller units, and attracting retailers back into the city centre. |
| Protection of smaller towns and villages | There is a strong view that smaller towns such as Neston should not be treated in the same way as larger urban centres, and that they require greater protection and locally responsive growth strategies. |
| Heritage, character and place identity | Respondents emphasise the importance of conserving heritage assets, maintaining distinctive local character, and supporting independent businesses, cultural uses and active frontages within town centres. |
| Diversification, housing and reuse of buildings | Many comments support diversification of town centres, including residential and office uses, provided that essential retail and services are retained, active ground-floor frontages are protected, and vacancy tests are applied flexibly. |
| Transport, accessibility and traffic impacts | The town-centre-first approach is seen as a way to reduce car-based trips and congestion, with calls for improved public transport and consultation with National Highways on large-scale developments. |
| Climate resilience and green infrastructure | Two representations highlight the need to integrate climate-friendly design, active travel, tree planting and protection of green corridors and natural assets into town centre regeneration. |
| Management of pubs, bars and night-time uses | One response calls for tighter control of pubs and bars, including responsibilities for customer behaviour and local environmental cleanliness. |
| Green Belt considerations | Support from one respondent for town-centre development, however conditional on avoiding loss of Green Belt land. |
| Reuse of vacant units before new development | One respondent supports prioritising the reuse of empty shops and premises before permitting new retail development. |
Question TC 2
Do you agree with requiring consideration of previously developed sites within the catchment of the proposal, or available and suitable sites that have a main town centre use permission, as part of the sequential test?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for inclusion of previously developed sites in the sequential test | A majority of respondents support the principle of including previously developed (brownfield) sites within the sequential test, viewing this as essential to a town-centre-first and brownfield-first approach that supports sustainability and local character. |
| Brownfield-first strategy and prevention of speculative greenfield release | Two representations emphasise that including previously developed sites (including those with extant permissions) helps prioritise regeneration, prevent land banking, and reduce pressure on greenfield and Green Belt land. |
| Consistency with national policy and the National Planning Policy Framework | One respondent strongly objects to the proposed approach, arguing that prioritising previously developed sites regardless of location would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires the sequential test to focus primarily on relative centrality and accessibility. |
| Flexibility for reuse of existing buildings | One nuanced view is expressed that while the sequential test is appropriate for new-build development, a lighter-touch approach should apply to proposals involving the re-use or refurbishment of existing buildings close to town centres. |
| Parish Council position | One Parish Council supports the requirement to consider previously developed sites within the catchment of proposals, aligning with a regeneration-led approach. |
Question TC 3
Do you agree with retaining the centre hierarchy?
16 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for retaining the centre hierarchy | The overwhelming majority of respondents support retaining the existing centre hierarchy, viewing it as an essential planning tool to provide certainty, guide investment, and maintain the vitality and viability of centres across the borough. |
| Need for periodic review and flexibility | One respondent supports retaining the hierarchy but stresses the importance of regular review to ensure it remains consistent with changes in settlement size, role, and function over time. |
| Role of market towns and service hubs | One representation emphasises the importance of recognising market towns, such as Frodsham, as service hubs for surrounding rural areas, with the hierarchy helping to protect their economic role and prevent inappropriate development pressure. |
| Managing growth and preventing sprawl | The centre hierarchy is supported as a mechanism to focus growth in appropriate locations, limit dispersed or out-of-centre development, and protect countryside buffers and sensitive environmental assets. |
| Policy clarity and investment certainty | One respondent notes that a clearly defined hierarchy provides clarity for decision-making and helps direct public and private investment to the most appropriate centres. |
| Relationship with retail evidence base | One representation highlights that the hierarchy should be informed by the emerging Retail Study and updated evidence base, with the opportunity to comment further once this work is complete. |
| Mixed-use development and retail flexibility | One detailed submission notes that retail uses can be complementary to housing and employment development, particularly on sites with extant permissions, and that the hierarchy should allow flexibility where impacts are acceptable. |
| Parish Council position | One Parish Council confirms its agreement with retaining the centre hierarchy. |
Question TC 4
Do you agree with our suggested approach to small scale rural development?
17 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for small-scale rural development | The majority of respondents support the principle of allowing small-scale retail and leisure development in rural areas, recognising its role in supporting local communities, rural businesses and everyday needs. |
| Rural character, landscape and scale limits | Support is frequently qualified by the need to protect rural character and landscape, with development expected to remain genuinely small-scale and not urbanise the countryside. |
| Link to land-based businesses and local need | Two representations stress that rural retail and leisure development should be clearly linked to land-based businesses, farm diversification, rural tourism or demonstrable local community needs. |
| Specific thresholds and criteria | Two detailed comments propose explicit criteria, including size limits (e.g. under 200 sqm), restriction to local-serving uses, and safeguards to ensure developments do not undermine nearby town or village centres. |
| Biodiversity, climate and environmental safeguards | One respondent highlights the importance of protecting biodiversity, ancient woodland and wildlife corridors, and ensuring rural development aligns with climate and carbon reduction objectives. |
| Reducing travel distances and supporting local hubs | Two comments support rural hubs on the basis that they can reduce travel distances, support digital connectivity, and help people live and work locally. |
| Concerns about viability and objection processes | One respondent objects to the approach, arguing that evidencing need is prohibitively expensive and that rural proposals are often undermined by high levels of local objection. |
| Parish Council position | One Parish Council confirms its support for the proposed approach to small-scale rural development. |
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.