Objectives
Question OB 1
Please select the option which is the most appropriate approach for the new Local Plan:
- Option A – Take forward current Local Plan objectives;
- Option B – Use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives;
- Neither of these.
155 comments
| a. Option A – Take forward current Local Plan objectives | b. Option B – Use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives | c. Neither of these | No clear preference/ blank |
| 57 (37%) | 42 (27%) | 40 (26%) | 16 (10%) |
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for Option A (current Local Plan objectives) | Respondents favour Option A for its continuity, clarity, prior examination, stronger link to local context, and balanced economic/social/environmental approach. Many emphasise brownfield-first, infrastructure alignment, and SO10 (Green Belt protection). |
| Support for Option B (Sustainability Appraisal objectives) | Respondents prefer Option B for its stronger environmental focus, alignment with climate-related policy, improved health and well-being considerations, and a more modernised sustainability framework. |
| Hybrid – Combination of Option A + B | Many emphasise that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. They support using Option A for structure and local specificity, with Option B integrated to modernise environmental, climate, and health priorities. |
| Option C / Neither Option A nor B | Respondents argue both options are insufficient, outdated, unclear, or not suited to current challenges such as climate change, infrastructure strain, community needs, housing pressures, or Green Belt protection. They request new, bespoke objectives. |
| Strong support for Green Belt protection | Many respondents oppose any weakening of the Green Belt. They emphasise protection of agricultural land, environmental value, settlement identity, and resistance to “grey belt” redesignation. Brownfield-first is frequently stressed. |
| Infrastructure concerns (transport, GP, Schools, utilities) | Concerns that development outstrips provision. Respondents call for infrastructure-first planning, noting congestion, poor public transport, limited school and GP capacity, and water/sewerage constraints. |
| Consultation format / clarity issues | Respondents highlight confusing or inconsistent option labelling, insufficient detail, and difficulty for lay respondents to make informed choices. |
| Environment, climate, biodiversity and contamination | Themes include the climate emergency, biodiversity net gain, habitats, pollution, environmental health, contaminated land and need for stronger environmental objectives. |
| Housing need, housing supply and growth | Comments cover housing targets, concerns about delivery, pressures on local areas, settlement character, viability issues, and national policy changes increasing local housing need figures (LHN). |
| Local area / parish-specific issues | Parish and community-based comments raise issues specific to certain villages (e.g. Willaston, Hooton, Tarporley and Alvanley), often linked to growth pressure, infrastructure limits, and environmental constraints. |
Question OB 2
Do you have any alternative approaches options that you would like to suggest?
60 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Green Belt, countryside protection and village character | Strong local concern about the protection of Green Belt, rural settings, village distinctiveness, and resistance to largescale or inappropriate development in rural areas. Many expect brownfield/ grey belt to be prioritised and argue that settlement boundaries and character should be respected. |
| Infrastructure first (schools, GPs, transport, utilities) | Widespread concern that infrastructure is already overstretched and development must not outpace capacity. Calls for a policy requirement that schools, GP surgeries, dentists, transport, roads, drainage and utilities must be in place or guaranteed before planning permission is granted. |
| Brownfield first / regeneration focus | Strong expectation that brownfield, underused land and derelict buildings should be developed before Green Belt. Several suggestions for targeted regeneration and reuse of urban sites. Many oppose any greenfield release until evidence of brownfield exhaustion is demonstrated. |
| Climate, environment, biodiversity, Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) compliance | Calls for clearer, measurable environmental objectives including climate resilience, air quality improvement, flood risk mitigation, biodiversity protection, and compliance with the Habitat Regulations Assessment. Several respondents say current assessments are insufficient or outdated. |
| Alternative objective - frameworks / mix of Option A and B / new objectives | Many respondents propose blending Option A (placemaking) and Option B (environmental focus). Others propose new, simplified or more deliveryfocused objectives. Several criticise Options A and B for overlap with the vision or being too aspirational. |
| Housing need, affordability & scale of growth | Comments frequently raise concerns about housing affordability, the ability of young people to secure homes, and the perceived overambition of housing targets. Some call for reducing the requirement to a “realistic and deliverable” figure. Others highlight the need for localneeds housing rather than speculative development. |
| New settlements / New Town concepts | Several respondents suggest creating a new settlement in a strategically located area (e.g. near M6/rail corridors) to reduce pressure on existing towns/villages. Seen as a more coherent alternative to incremental village expansion. |
| Transport, mobility, public transport and car use | Respondents express varied views: some prioritise sustainable transport access as essential; others argue that wellbeing and freedom to use a car should not be constrained. Need for improved public transport and EV infrastructure frequently referenced. |
| Planning process, trust and national policy constraints | Some believe national policy overrides local wishes and question the meaningfulness of consultation. Expressions of frustration with the planning process and lack of faith in outcomes are notable. |
| Evidence base, Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment & technical methodology | Responses highlight gaps in sustainability appraisal coverage, lack of boroughfocused environmental assessment, and need for updated evidence. Some support using Sustainability Appraisal objectives for consistency. |
| Accessibility, disability, health and wellbeing | Comments stress that highquality, accessible infrastructure is essential, especially for disabled people. Health and wellbeing should be a central objective, including air quality, access to green spaces, and safe active travel. |
Option A
Question OB 3
Do you feel that the option of taking forward the current Local Plan objectives into the new Local Plan, as set out in Option A above, is an appropriate approach?
93 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for Option A | Many respondents agree that Option A (retaining the existing Local Plan objectives) provides a stable and familiar foundation. Some see it as easier to implement, recently tested, or aligned with existing evidence. However, much of this support is conditional, emphasising the need for updates, stronger safeguards, and better delivery. |
| Opposition to Option A | A large proportion of respondents oppose continuing with existing objectives. Concerns include outdated policy, previous failures of implementation, inadequate protection of the environment and communities, or the view that “copy and paste” will not meet future challenges. |
| Green Belt protection / countryside | One of the strongest themes - respondents frequently object to development on Green Belt or countryside. They cite landscape character, loss of identity, environmental damage, prior over-development, and distrust that existing objectives have protected these areas sufficiently. |
| Brownfield-first priority | Many respondents insist development should focus on brownfield land before any Green Belt release is considered. This is often linked to regeneration ambitions and concerns over unnecessary countryside loss. |
| Infrastructure capacity (GPs, schools, roads, utilities) | Several respondents feel infrastructure has not kept pace with development—particularly in Helsby, Frodsham and Chester fringes. Concerns include overwhelmed schools, pressure on GPs, traffic congestion, sewerage, air quality, and unsafe walking routes. Many call for “infrastructure-first” policy. |
| Climate change, biodiversity, nature recovery | Respondents call for stronger objectives relating to climate adaptation, decarbonisation, biodiversity net gain, nature recovery networks, and protection of irreplaceable habitats (e.g. ancient woodland). Many say the current objectives lack depth and credibility on environmental commitments. |
| Housing mix, affordability & community needs | Calls for housing policies that reflect real local need, more affordable homes, smaller homes, social rent, accessible housing, and a fair distribution across the borough. Concerns over speculative, commuter-focused estates that do not benefit existing communities. |
| Alignment with Combined Authority / national policy – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2024+) | Some comments emphasise that objectives must reflect newer national expectations - mandatory housing targets, grey belt review, infrastructure “golden rules” and also align with sub-regional priorities under the new Combined Authority. |
| Deliverability, monitoring and accountability | Multiple respondents express scepticism that objectives will be implemented effectively. They say objectives have previously been ignored, need measurable indicators, tracking, and enforceability. |
| Developer / landowner advocacy for flexibility (including Green Belt release) | Developer and landowner representations tend to support Option A, only if it becomes more flexible, especially enabling strategic site allocations, reviewing Green Belt, responding to market signals, or facilitating edge-of-settlement growth. |
Question OB 4
Do you think that objectives SO1, SO3, SO9, SO10 need to be amended if they are to be taken forward into the new Local Plan? Do you have any suggestions for how they should be amended?
120 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for Green Belt protection (SO10) | The dominant theme across responses. Most contributors strongly oppose any Green Belt release, viewing it as essential for preserving local character, preventing urban sprawl, protecting biodiversity, supporting wellbeing, and maintaining the identity of villages. Many emphasise that national policy changes should not override local priorities. |
| Support for SO3 but opposition to rural development | Many support farming, agriculture and the rural economy, but strongly oppose locating new housing or large developments in rural areas. They argue development erodes character, harms landscapes, and contradicts local needs. |
| Brownfieldfirst / urban regeneration priority | Respondents overwhelmingly argue that all brownfield, empty and derelict sites should be redeveloped before any countryside or Green Belt land is considered. Some suggest this principle should be strengthened within SO9. |
| Infrastructure capacity concerns | A strong crosscutting theme: many believe existing infrastructure (roads, schools, health care, rail capacity, sewage networks) cannot support additional development. Several references are highly locationspecific (e.g. Neston, Parkgate sewage overflows). |
| Desire to strengthen SO1, SO3, SO9, SO10 | Many respondents accept the objectives but want them reinforced, especially by making Green Belt protection absolute, ensuring brownfield-first is mandatory, and tying growth to robust infrastructure tests. |
| Calls for flexibility and Green Belt release | A smaller but notable number of respondents support Green Belt release to meet significantly increased housing requirements, particularly around key settlements such as Chester/Northwich. They emphasise 'grey belt', sustainability credentials, and national policy requirements. |
| Environmental and biodiversity concerns | Respondents emphasise ecological value, biodiversity, nature recovery (Local Nature Recovery Strategy), wildlife corridors, ancient woodland, agricultural land, and internationally protected habitats. Some cite specific species and statutory designations. |
| Protection of village character and local identity | Many express concern that development is causing villages to lose their identity or merge into large housing estates. Green spaces, farmland, and rural landscapes are described as essential to community character and wellbeing. |
| Opposition to national policy influence | Some respondents strongly argue that local policy should not be weakened simply because national guidance has shifted. They expect the Council to defend local priorities over national targets. |
| Need for clearer or updated wording of objectives | Several comments call for clearer definitions within objectives (e.g., “appropriate scale”), alignment with updated evidence, recognition of new settlement hierarchies, or splitting objectives for clarity. |
| General observations / uncategorised Comments | Includes procedural questions, statements of general support or uncertainty, and comments unrelated to specific objectives. |
Option B
Question OB 5
Do you feel that the option of using the Sustainability Appraisal objectives in the new Local Plan, as set out in Option B above, is an appropriate approach?
110 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Appropriateness of Option B (support vs opposition) | Responses are divided. Supporters view Option B as environmentally robust, forward‑looking and aligned with modern policy challenges. Opponents see it as impractical, overly broad, insufficiently place‑based, and inappropriate as a Local Plan framework without deeper alignment to local needs, deliverability, or statutory objectives. |
| Housing delivery / affordability / housing crisis | Multiple respondents comment that Option B underplays housing need, undermines deliverability, lacks realism on affordability, and risks restricting development in ways that worsen the housing shortage. Many emphasise the need for clear, achievable housing‑led objectives, not just sustainability aspirations. |
| Green Belt protection / rural character / landscape | Concerns focus on missing explicit Green Belt protection (unlike Local Plan SO10), loss of distinctive rural identity, risks of greenfield expansion, and need to protect villages, landscape character and agricultural land. |
| Infrastructure capacity (GPs, schools, roads, utilities) | A major shared concern: current services are already overstretched. Respondents emphasise that Option B does not guarantee timely infrastructure delivery, enforce developer obligations, or ensure service provision keeps pace with development. Many highlight congestion, healthcare pressures, and school capacity. |
| Transport (public transport, active travel, congestion) | Option B is criticised for assuming sustainable transport where it does not exist. Key issues include: weak bus networks, unrealistic expectations of cycling/walking, limited rail accessibility, already congested corridors, and risks of worsening emissions where “sustainable transport” is theoretical not real. |
| Climate change / environmental sustainability/biodiversity | Supporters say Option B strengthens climate resilience, net‑zero planning, biodiversity recovery, and nature‑positive development. Critics say it overemphasises environmental issues at the expense of other planning needs or fails to address adaptation sufficiently (heat, flooding, real local context). |
| Crime prevention, community safety and wellbeing | Some respondents strongly welcome Option B for explicitly referencing community safety and crime prevention which is seen as missing from Option A. Safe environments are framed as essential for wellbeing, sustainability and confidence in new development. |
| Deliverability/ viability/enforceability | A common critique is that Option B risks producing a plan that is too vague, too theoretical or untested for real examination. Issues include viability risks, excessive policy burdens, missing prioritisation, lack of measurable criteria, legal vulnerabilities, and potential to constrain development. |
| Town centres /retail/ economy /regeneration | Respondents highlight the decline of town centres (especially Chester & Northwich), the dominance of online retail, and the need for stronger economic and regeneration‑focused objectives that are missing from Option B. |
| Preference for hybrid approach (Option A + B integrated) | Many suggest that Option B has positive environmental elements but lacks the clarity, statutory robustness and scope of Option A. A combined model is frequently recommended: retain Option A’s strategic objectives and selectively integrate environmental objectives from Option B. |
| Flooding / water quality / pollution / drainage | Several respondents argue for stronger, more specific water‑related objectives, including flood risk reduction, water efficiency, pollution controls, and climate‑linked resilience. Some call for expanded commitments beyond Option B’s wording. |
| Cultural change, community identity and place‑specific needs |
Comments stress the need for cultural change (in councils and communities), stronger place identity, local context, and protection of unique local characteristics—areas seen as under‑developed in Option B which is considered to be too broad.
|
Question OB 6
If you do not feel this is an appropriate approach, are there any changes that you could suggest?
47 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Option A vs Option B — preference, blended approaches | Respondents generally favour Option A or call for a hybrid model that retains Option A’s protections while integrating selective Sustainability Appraisal objectives from Option B. Option B alone is widely seen as insufficient. |
| Infrastructure first (schools, health, transport, utilities) | Strong consensus that development must only proceed where infrastructure is already in place or guaranteed, especially GP capacity, schools, transport, sewage, and utilities. |
| Green Belt, countryside and agricultural land protection | Green Belt protection emerges as one of the most dominant themes. Respondents emphasise avoiding erosion of strategic gaps, protecting rural character, and safeguarding agricultural land. |
| Biodiversity, wildlife and environmental assets | Comments call for stronger recognition of nature recovery, protection of habitats (including small-scale sites), and safeguarding sensitive ecological areas such as estuaries, woodland, and bird habitats. |
| Housing - location, mix and sustainable growth | Feedback stresses the need for appropriate housing distribution, realistic sustainable locations, and a strong focus on affordable and downsizing homes. Some express concern about excessive development. |
| Transport and sustainable travel | Public transport reliability and realistic travel patterns are highlighted. Several comments push for safer pedestrian/cycle routes and warn against assuming non-car travel where services are poor. |
| Community facilities and wellbeing | Respondents want explicit commitments to high-quality community services (healthcare, schools, cultural spaces) and to enhancing wellbeing through design and accessible green spaces. |
| Developer accountability and measurable objectives | Commenters highlight the need for enforceable, specific, measurable objectives and binding developer commitments to ensure delivery of promised infrastructure and community benefits. |
| Climate change, energy efficiency and net zero | Respondents call for clear climate commitments, renewable energy requirements, and carbon reduction objectives aligned with the Council’s climate emergency declarations. |
| Local character, heritage and identity of places | Protecting the distinct identity of villages, heritage landscapes, and locally inspired design is seen as essential to maintaining the borough’s character. |
| Governance, evidence base and Plan quality | Multiple comments highlight the need for neutrality in policy language, regular review of policies, improved evidence base integration, and clarity in the plan’s rationale. |
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.