27 Design and sustainable construction - summary of responses

High quality design

Question DS 1

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards high quality design, as set out in DS 1 'High quality design' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

58 comments

Theme	Summary
General agreement / support for DS1	Many respondents broadly support the high‑quality design policy and its principles.
Need for strong design codes / detailed, visual, enforceable guidance	Design codes should be precise, visual, place‑specific and enforceable to avoid ambiguity and improve outcomes.
Heritage and historic environment protection	Policies should ensure development preserves or enhances heritage assets and reflects local materials and character.
Climate resilience, design, biodiversity and green infrastructure	Respondents highlighted overheating risk, passive solar gain, biodiversity net gain and sustainable materials/landscapes.
Accessibility and inclusive design	Policy should require universal access, inclusive public realm and accessible movement networks.
Crime prevention, safety and resilience	Design should embed ‘Secured by Design’ principles, safety features, and emergency service access.
Transport integration, connectivity and walkability	New developments should integrate with existing networks, avoid isolated layouts and support walking/cycling.
Concerns about viability and over‑prescription	Developers cite caution that design standards should allow flexibility and avoid impacts on viability.
Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) – need for evidence / flexibility	Nationally Described Space Standards may only be introduced with robust justification; smaller homes remain important for affordability.
Environmental quality, noise, residential amenity and specific infrastructure issues	Proposals should safeguard amenity, avoid noise impacts and consider operational requirements of developments adjacent to rail infrastructure.
Waterside / canal‑related design guidance	Canal & River Trust supports the approach and refers to its waterside design principles.
Criticism of past design outcomes / trust issues	Some respondents expressed scepticism, citing poor design accepted on previous schemes.
High sustainability expectations (energy, materials, water, embodied carbon)	Calls for much higher energy standards, better materials, rainwater harvesting, solar panels and future‑proofing infrastructure.

Question DS 2

If the Council produces a borough-wide Design Code, should this form part of the new Local Plan?

44 comments

Theme	Summary
Include the borough-wide Design Code in the Local Plan (give full weight)	Many respondents say the Design Code should form part of the Local Plan to ensure full planning weight and clarity. Some add safeguards and propose specific sections for larger allocated sites.
Treat the Design Code as a separate Supplementary Planning Document (material consideration), not part of the development plan	Prefer a standalone Supplementary Planning Document so the code can be updated more easily and applied flexibly. References Planning Practice Guidance and Supplementary Planning Document Regulations; avoid being overly prescriptive.
Flexibility, site-specific application, and avoiding one-size-fits-all	Suggestions to adopt an umbrella approach that allows innovation and local variation. Ensure proportionate, evidence-based standards; avoid rigid templates; use masterplans/design briefs for urban extensions.
Design Code to inform/underpin Local Plan design policies (consistency and developer confidence)	A borough-wide Design Code should inform clear, consistent, evidence-based design policies to add certainty and improve developer confidence.
Obligation and enforcement - all developers (including the Council) must comply	Compliance should be mandatory for all developers, including the Council; otherwise, the Design Code will not achieve its purpose.
Respect and embed neighbourhood/parish design codes and local detail	The borough framework must cross-reference and respect Neighbourhood Plans; where a Parish has an approved Design Code (e.g., Tarporley), it should take precedence locally.
Maintain character and avoid ‘cookie-cutter’ development	Hold developers to high-quality, site-appropriate design to avoid repetitive, characterless schemes, even if this impacts margins.
Viability testing and proportionate requirements (including industrial/small functional buildings)	Undertake Local Plan viability testing; set thresholds to avoid undue burdens on minor or industrial proposals; consider incentives such as positive weight for BREEAM Excellent standards in non-residential schemes.
Masterplanning and sustainable placemaking principles for urban extensions	Prepare adopted masterplans/ Supplementary Planning Documents or design briefs to secure legible, mixed neighbourhoods with local centres, public transport, walking/cycling, and genuinely affordable housing.
Stakeholder engagement and estate-level design guides	One landowners supports engagement on the Design Code in parallel with estate guides
Twin-tracking production to align the Design Code with the Local Plan	Produce the Design Code alongside the Local Plan to ensure alignment, viability and timely delivery.
Include the borough-wide Design Code in the Local Plan (give full weight)	Many respondents say the Design Code should form part of the Local Plan to ensure full planning weight and clarity. Some add safeguards and propose specific sections for larger allocated sites.

Question DS3

What should the Council's approach be to the designated Area of Special Control of Advertisements?

9 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for retaining the Area of Special Control of Advertisements	Respondents support keeping the designated Area of Special Control to protect rural character, landscapes, dark skies, biodiversity and heritage.
Calls for stricter enforcement of advertisement controls	Comments call for firm enforcement, including action on pop-up adverts along motorways and lorry trailer advertising in fields.
Environmental and biodiversity considerations	Requests to protect wildlife corridors, ancient woodland, and avoid light pollution, aligning with neighbourhood plan evidence and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)/Natural England guidance.
Marine and coastal planning considerations	One respondent notes the need for integrated marine and terrestrial planning references, aligning with North West Marine Plan areas.

Sustainable construction

Question DS4

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards sustainable construction, as set out in DS 2 'Sustainable construction' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

33 comments

Theme	Summary
General agreement with DS4 sustainable construction approach	Many respondents express broad support for the overall sustainable construction principles in DS4.
Protection and enhancement of the historic environment and character	Policies should conserve heritage assets, their settings, and local identity when applying sustainable construction requirements.
Net-zero, carbon mitigation and national policy alignment	Support for net-zero goals but calls for alignment with national building regulations and clear justification for additional local standards.
Need for stronger, clearer and enforceable sustainability requirements	Calls to strengthen DS4 by tightening standards, prioritising the energy hierarchy, limiting offsetting, requiring whole-life carbon assessments, and confirming renewable energy contributions.
Water efficiency, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) and drainage requirements	Support for higher water efficiency standards and explicit inclusion of sustainable drainage systems.
Embodied carbon assessment, reuse of buildings and low-carbon materials	Requests for mandatory whole-life carbon assessments, embodied carbon targets, and incentivising reuse of structures and materials.
Soil protection, peat safeguarding and construction-phase environmental management	Calls for soil surveys, reuse strategies, minimising disturbance, and avoiding development on restorable peat due to climate implications.
Climate change evidence, global impacts and ‘climate anxiety’ considerations	One detailed submission highlighting global climate change impacts, social inequalities, future risks, and the need for councils to support community resilience and ‘climate anxiety’ awareness.
Concerns about viability, duplication and avoiding excessive local standards	Developers caution against duplicating or exceeding national requirements due to viability concerns and potential inconsistency with national policy.
Need for renewable energy integration and on-site generation for commercial uses	Support for requiring solar panels and renewable energy generation, particularly for commercial and warehousing developments.

Question DS5

Do you think that the new Local Plan should adopt the National Design Guide energy hierarchy – or is there an alternative?

13 comments

Theme	Summary
General agreement to adopt the National Design Guide energy hierarchy	Several respondents explicitly support adopting the national energy hierarchy as the basis for DS5.
Support with expectation for higher or stronger standards	One respondent supports the hierarchy but believes alternatives should be higher in standard.
Do not repeat national guidance – defer to national policy	Respondent argues local policy should avoid duplication and instead defer to national guidance.
Support for hierarchy with local tailoring	Detailed response supports the hierarchy but stresses local energy mapping (solar, district heat, wind) and passive design benefits.
Advocacy for very high standards (Passivhaus, solar, batteries, 3‑phase power)	Respondent argues all new homes should meet Passivhaus and include solar PV, batteries and 3‑phase connection.
Reference to National Design Code	Some responses referencing the National Design Code without further comment.
Developer support for hierarchy if applied flexibly	Developer respondent supports the hierarchy but emphasises flexibility, proportionate application and viability considerations.

Question DS6

Do you think that the new Local Plan should set a higher local standard beyond the building regulations requirements to achieve net zero carbon in all new developments?

29 comments

Theme	Summary
General support for higher local standards beyond Building Regulations	Respondents support setting higher local standards to deliver net‑zero development, future‑proof homes, reduce running costs and reflect the declared climate emergency.
Conditional support dependent on viability or evidence	Support is offered only if viable, realistically deliverable and balanced against other requirements such as affordable housing.
Opposition citing national policy - local authorities should not exceed Building Regulations	Respondents argue the Written Ministerial Statement (Dec 2023) prevents local energy standards beyond national regulations; warn against fragmentation, added costs, and risks at examination.
Requests for ambitious climate‑led local standards	Respondents call for strong local requirements, whole‑life carbon assessments and progressive tightening during the plan period.
Industry responses requesting Target Emissions Rate based uplift if higher standards pursued	Developers note that if higher standards are required, they must be expressed through percentage uplift to the Target Emissions Rate (TER) with robust costed evidence.

Question DS7

Do you have any comments on the suggested policy requirements: 1. Energy efficiency; 2. Efficient, fossil-free and renewable energy supply; 3. Carbon/ energy offsetting; 4. Embodied carbon; or 5. Water efficiency - the type and size of development they should apply to, or the targets that should be met?

22 comments

Theme	Summary
Energy efficiency	Comments highlight support for solar‑ready buildings and compact design, alongside concerns that local standards must not exceed national Building Regulations unless fully justified and viable.
Renewable / low‑carbon energy supply	Mixed views: some support fossil‑free heating and mandatory on‑site renewables, while industry respondents emphasise flexibility where photovoltaic or district heat is unsuitable.
Carbon / energy offsetting	Respondents warn that offsetting must be a last resort; some support technologies like carbon capture or biochar, while others reject offsetting entirely.
Embodied carbon	Industry groups argue embodied carbon standards should remain national, while others support mandatory reporting and reduction targets for major developments.
Water efficiency	Some support the optional 110 l/p/d standard or higher, while others argue the area is not water‑stressed and the requirement is unjustified.
Other cross‑cutting points	Themes include viability, need for flexibility, retrofit‑first principles, compact design benefits and the need to consider monitoring and data access.
Supportive / no Comment	Several respondents expressed support for the proposed requirements or had no additional comments.

Question DS8

Do you think that the new Local Plan policy should offer an alternative route to compliance if the development achieves a recognisable industry standard/ certification?

16 comments

Theme	Summary
Support for offering an alternative compliance route (e.g. Passivhaus, recognised certifications)	Many respondents support allowing recognised industry standards such as Passivhaus as an alternative route to compliance, provided requirements remain robust.
Support with conditions – independent audit, strict robustness, prevent dilution	Respondents support the route only if accompanied by rigorous verification, avoidance of developer “box‑ticking,” and assurance standards cover carbon, biodiversity and water.
Opposition – risk of developers exploiting flexibility to weaken standards	Some respondents oppose any alternative route, citing developer behaviour, risk of minimising obligations, and concern that Local Plan standards should not be lowered.
Developers/landowners support flexibility and positive weighting for Passivhaus	Developer representations welcome the optional Passivhaus route as flexible, proportionate and helpful in avoiding duplication with other requirements.

Question DS9

Question DS 9 Do you have any comments on the type and size of development that the alternative compliance should apply to, or any alternative suggestions for the level and type of certification that could be required, for example, BREEAM Carbon Standard, RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge, or UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard?

8 comments

Theme	Summary
No limits on type and size of development eligible for alternative compliance	One respondent states there should be no upper or lower limit on what type or scale of development the alternative compliance route applies to.
Support for recognised high‑performance standards (Passivhaus, BREEAM, RIBA 2030, UK Net Zero)	One response strongly supports requiring major developments to meet high‑performance standards such as Passivhaus or BREEAM Excellent and aligning with national frameworks such as RIBA 2030 and the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard.
Ecological / environmentally sensitive sites should need ecological design certification	One respondent suggests that developments near ancient woodland and sensitive ecological areas must require specialist ecological certification.
Scaled targets for small sites / universal application for major developments	One response proposes that alternative compliance routes should apply to all major developments, while small sites could have proportionate or scaled requirements.

Climate adaptation

Question DS10

Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards climate adaptation, as set out in DS 3 'Climate adaptation' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?

30 comments

Theme	Summary
General agreement with DS10 / climate adaptation approach	Multiple respondents simply agree with the suggested climate adaptation policy direction.
Historic environment and character protection	Climate adaptation policies should conserve and enhance heritage assets and local character.
Tree planting, green space and urban cooling	Requests for mandatory tree planting, protection of existing trees, shaded routes, and maintenance plans to improve resilience.
Policy conflicts / need for clarity across standards	Climate adaptation requirements must avoid conflict with design, renewable energy, biodiversity net gain, density and building regulations.
Additional climate topics not covered (e.g., biochar)	Requests to reference wider benefits of biochar and other climate‑positive measures.
Sustainable drainage, water neutrality and runoff controls	Calls for explicit reference to Sustainable Drainage Systems and requirement that runoff from development does not exceed pre‑development levels.
Support for integrated green/blue infrastructure	Support for modelling, future‑proofing, overheating mitigation and resilience for transport infrastructure.
Support with request for stronger passive design measures	One respondent recommends more emphasis on passive cooling, ventilation, daylight and solar shading.
Detailed, research‑based recommendations for ambitious adaptation	One submission cites multiple evidence sources and calls for mandatory adaptation strategies, Sustainable Drainage Systems, heat‑risk modelling, monitoring, and nature‑based solutions up to 2100.
Future climate scenario modelling and site‑specific strategies	Requests modelling against future climate scenarios and climate adaptation strategies for major schemes.
Need to integrate climate adaptation with biodiversity and water resources	One respondent emphasises alignments with Local Nature Recovery Strategies, habitat resilience, Sustainable Drainage Systems, water efficiency and nature‑based solutions.
Clarification that climate change extends beyond weather	One respondent notes the need for deeper framing of climate impacts.
Water sector support for integrated green/blue infrastructure	One respondent emphasises the need for Sustainable Drainage Systems, natural flood management, water efficiency and early integration into design.
Viability concerns and need for flexibility	One respondent warns additional requirements may threaten viability and require flexible mechanisms.
Climate change scepticism	One respondent states that climate has always changed, implying disagreement with policy.

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.