Landscape
Question LA 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards landscape, as set out in LA 1 'Landscape' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
82 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General Support for LA1 landscape policy approach | Respondents broadly agree with LA1 Landscape policy approach, supporting protection and enhancement of landscape character, settlement identity, and rural distinctiveness. |
| Support for maintaining Key Settlement Gaps | Strong support for preserving gaps to avoid coalescence, protect local identity, and maintain rural character. |
| Opposition to LA1 landscape policy approach or settlement gap approach | Opposition due to perceived restrictions on growth and development. |
| Sandstone Ridge protection / Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) | Emphasis on protecting the Sandstone Ridge and supporting AONB/National Landscape designation. |
| Historic Environment and Heritage Landscape | Importance of heritage assets, ancient woodland, and historic landscapes. |
| Need for stronger / expanded landscape protection | Requests for new gaps, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) requirements, and a light pollution policy. |
| Brownfield-first strategy | Prioritise brownfield redevelopment and avoid greenfield/Green Belt loss. |
| Concerns about planning practice | Concerns about decisions undermining nature recovery and inconsistent application of policy. |
| Green Infrastructure and nature recovery | Calls for green infrastructure-led development, ecological networks and nature recovery opportunities. |
| Alignment with external authorities | Need alignment with neighbouring councils and national transport bodies. |
| Evidence-based landscape review | Requests for full landscape assessment to justify Key Settlement Gaps and designations. |
| Local green space and identity | Importance of local green space in maintaining identity and preventing coalescence. |
| Major site-specific submissions | Land south of Ellesmere Port should take a landscape-led approach to masterplanning this strategic site. |
| Additional policy elements | Requests for policies relating to light pollution, dark skies protection and tranquillity areas. |
Question LA 2
Should the key settlement gaps currently defined in Local Plan (Part Two) policy GBC 3 be reviewed? Could they be expanded, and/or should new key settlement gaps be identified in the Green Belt, or other areas to help protect the character of settlements?
41 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for Key Settlement Gaps | Strong recurring support for maintaining settlement gaps to prevent coalescence, preserve local character, and maintain village identity. Includes emphasis on keeping gaps around areas such as Helsby–Frodsham, Parkgate–Gayton (Wirral), Weaverham–Acton Bridge. |
| Settlement gaps expansion / new gaps required | Some comments call for expansion of existing settlement gaps, especially where gaps are narrow or at risk of coalescence. Some highlight the need for new gaps in areas not currently designated. |
| Need to review settlement gaps / evidence base | Some respondents state gaps should be reviewed, updated, or reassessed due to outdated evidence (2006–2016 Landscape Study). Several suggest reviews must align with development pressures and national policy. |
| Arguments for flexibility to allow development in gaps | Some respondents argue settlement gaps should not restrict sustainable housing delivery, especially where gaps are already eroded or where development could be integrated without harming character. |
| Green Belt relationship / Grey Belt policy | Several comments relate settlement gaps to Green Belt functions. Some argue no new gaps are needed within the Green Belt because Green Belt policy already prevents settlement merging. |
| Environmental and ecological corridor function | Some emphasise the ecological importance of settlement gaps, especially in relation to wildlife corridors (e.g. Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham), nature recovery networks, and green infrastructure frameworks. |
| Neighbourhood Plan alignment | Comments highlight the need to recognise and align with settlement gaps already established in Neighbourhood Plans. |
| Concerns about Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) boundaries | One comment questions how building up to the boundary of an ASCV would impact landscape character and views. |
Question LA 3
In advance of any formal designation of national landscape, how should the Local Plan deal with it?
20 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for protecting the Sandstone Ridge | Many respondents support strong protection for the Sandstone Ridge, recognising its scenic, wildlife, tourism and landscape value. They call for avoidance of development that would harm its character. |
| Calls for formal landscape / conservation designation | Several comments request formal designation, including National Landscape (AONB) level protection or interim safeguarding until national assessment is complete. |
| Requests for interim protection pending national decision | Respondents emphasise that, while Natural England has paused the designation process, the Local Plan should still apply precautionary protection equivalent to National Landscape status. |
| Opposition or scepticism toward designation | Some respondents state the proposed area is excessive or that, due to the designation pause, planning policy does not need to address this issue at present. |
| Environmental and biodiversity concerns linked to the Sandstone Ridge | Comments highlight the ecological importance of the Sandstone Ridge and surrounding areas, including woodland and biodiversity assets that would be fragmented by development. |
| Green Belt relationship and development restraint | Some responses link protection of the Sandstone Ridge to a need for strict control of Green Belt release and “grey belt” scenarios that could undermine landscape designation. |
| Requests for Government action | Two respondents call for the Council to request that Government restarts and completes the National Landscape designation assessment. |
Areas of Special County Value
Question LA 4
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards landscape, as set out in LA 2 'Areas of Special County Value' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
39 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for retention or strengthening of Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) | Respondents emphasise the importance of retaining and reinforcing of Areas of Special County Value designations, highlighting rural character, biodiversity, ecological networks, tourism, and identity. Many say development must avoid harm and, in some cases, enhance landscape quality. |
| Support with calls for stronger/expanded protection | Agreement with the policy but calls for extending Areas of Special County Value boundaries, adding ancient woodland and wildlife corridor protections, requiring measurable net enhancements, and protecting surrounding areas. |
| Concerns about development pressure / inadequate protection | Concerns that current planning does not effectively prevent harmful development, with examples including housing pressure in the Weaver Valley and solar development near sensitive RAMSAR (wetland site designated to be of international importance under the Ramsar Convention) sites. |
| Need to review/update Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) boundaries or evidence base | One comment highlights that Areas of Special County Value boundaries are outdated, based on 1970s criteria, lacking robust evidence and precision. A full review is requested before continuing to use existing designations. |
| Locally specific landscape importance areas e.g. (Neston, Parkgate, Dee Estuary) | Several responses highlight the sensitivity and importance of the Dee Coastal Area of Special County Value and adjacent nature reserves, particularly around Neston and Parkgate. |
| General policy support with wider landscape context | These responses support the landscape policy within the wider context of neighbourhood plans, national policy, ancient woodland protection, and nature recovery strategies. |
| Neutral / limited comment | Three comments either offer partial agreement, a qualified position, or do not provide views at this stage. |
Question LA 5
Should the Areas of Special County Value currently defined in Local Plan (Part Two) policy GBC 2 be reviewed and updated?
26 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for reviewing and updating Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) | Respondents believe that Areas of Special County Value should be reviewed to reflect modern pressures, updated evidence, community values, and to expand protection. |
| Opposition to reviewing Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) | Respondents argue the principles of Areas of Special County Value designations remain valid and unchanged and see no justification for revisiting boundaries. |
| Conditional or evidence-led review | Support for a review only if justified by up-to-date landscape character assessments. |
| Landscape areas proposed for recognition / expansion | Respondents identify high-value scenic, ecological, and cultural landscapes that should be designated or expanded within Areas of Special County Value. |
| Integration with other evidence/policy | Comments highlight integration with the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), Neighbourhood Plan evidence, biodiversity networks, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) guidance, and climate objectives. |
| Calls for greater protection of Areas of Special County Value (ASCV) and/or Green Belt | Two respondents emphasise maintaining or increasing protection for wellbeing, biodiversity, and rural character. |
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.