Safeguarded areas around aerodromes
Question MISC 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards safeguarded areas around aerodromes, as set out in MISC 1 'Safeguarded areas around aerodromes' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
16 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement/support for safeguarding approach | Many respondents explicitly agreed with the safeguarding policy approach for aerodromes. |
| Survey quality concerns | Concerns raised about survey design, vagueness and need for clearer engagement mechanisms. |
| Qualified support requesting balancing tests | One comment supports safeguarding but only with clearer balancing against renewable energy, housing and community needs. |
| Environmental and habitat protection concerns | One respondent highlighted risks of displacing development pressure into sensitive habitats such as ancient woodland (e.g., Hob Hey Wood). |
| Aerodrome operator / industry support with technical amendments | Manchester Airports Group strongly supports safeguarding and proposes technical updates including radar, lighting, wildlife and glint and glare considerations. |
Jodrell Bank
Question MISC 2
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards the Jodrell Bank consultation zone, as set out in MISC 2 'Jodrell Bank' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
14 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement with policy approach to Jodrell Bank | Many respondents explicitly agreed with the suggested policy approach and emphasised protecting the Jodrell Bank Observatory. |
| Importance of conserving historic environment and World Heritage Site status | Comments highlight the need to conserve the historic environment, with emphasis on Jodrell Bank’s UNESCO World Heritage Site status requiring highest safeguarding. |
| Need for explicit reference to World Heritage Site and technical safeguarding | One response calls for explicit policy reference to World Heritage Site status and integration with design codes, including landscape and radio interference safeguards. |
| Suggestion to strengthen or amend wording | One respondent suggested rewording the policy to “not support proposals that would impair…” to avoid developer exploitation. |
| Development may be acceptable subject to mitigation | A technical respondent notes that Jodrell Bank did not object to previous applications with electromagnetic screening and that impacts would be assessed on future proposals. |
Waterways and mooring facilities
Question MISC 3
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards waterways and mooring facilities, as set out in MISC 3 'Waterways and mooring facilities' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
18 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General Support | Many respondents express broad or full support for the suggested policy approach. |
| Recreational access protection | Concerns raised about ensuring informal recreational access (kayaking, angling, etc.) is not restricted. |
| Environmental protection and water quality | Comments highlight need to protect habitats, water quality, mitigate spillages, and ensure biodiversity net gain. |
| Extension of policy areas | Requests that the policy should extend to cover more areas such as Frodsham and Sutton Weaver. |
| Operational safeguarding of waterways | Need to safeguard waterways' operational capacity, including freight transport and community/ecological roles. |
| Towpath and active travel improvements | Comments emphasise need for towpath upgrades and improved active travel links. |
| Residential moorings | One suggestion is to allocate proportion of new moorings for residential use to support housing needs. |
| Cumulative impact assessment | One respondent proposes to require assessment of cumulative ecological, navigational, and amenity impacts. |
| Regeneration and economic opportunities | Support for waterways as drivers of regeneration, leisure economy, and wellbeing. |
| Retention of Local Plan policy DM 38 | Strong support for retaining existing Local Plan Part Two waterways policy. |
| Creation of new waterways | One suggestion is to explore creation of new waterways as part of development. |
Meeting the outstanding housing requirement in Tattenhall
Question MISC 4
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for meeting the outstanding housing requirement in Tattenhall that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy R 2? Or could policy R 2 be deleted?
25 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Local Plan policy R 2 should be deleted – majority view | Most respondents stated that existing Local Plan policy R 2 should be deleted, arguing that past circumstances no longer apply and that housing growth in Tattenhall should be addressed through a borough-wide spatial strategy, not a standalone policy. |
| Local Plan policy R 2 no longer needed due to completion or future strategy shift | One respondent notes that one of the existing Local Plan policy R 2 sites has already been completed and suggests future growth should be directed to a major strategic allocation instead. |
| Local Plan policy R 2 unnecessary if new Plan allocates housing requirement | A developer respondent states existing Local Plan policy R 2 is unnecessary if a new Local Plan sets housing requirements for settlements and allocates sites accordingly. |
| Local Plan policy R 2 should be retained | One respondent states clearly that the policy should be retained. |
| General support / Yes | The respondent answers “Yes” with no further detail. |
| Heritage and historic environment considerations | One respondent highlights need for robust assessment of heritage assets and their setting for any sites. |
| Transport and national highways coordination needed | Another respondent calls for continued coordination with National Highways to assess transport implications of any new allocations. |
| Local consultation should determine approach | One respondent states the decision should be made through consultation with local stakeholders such as the Parish Council. |
Employment land provision in the rural area
Question MISC 5
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for employment land provision in the rural area that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy R 3? Or could policy R 3 potentially be deleted?
11 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for having a rural employment policy (retain policy intent) | Respondents support keeping a specific rural employment policy to enable small‑scale, locally appropriate employment and to ensure rural communities have opportunities alongside residential growth. |
| Local Plan policy R 3 could be deleted if covered in new spatial strategy | A respondent states that existing Local Plan policy R 3 could be deleted as a standalone policy if the new spatial strategy and employment allocations adequately address rural employment needs. |
| Opposition to speculative or large‑scale rural development | Concerns raised that removing or weakening policy safeguards could lead to speculative or inappropriate rural development, harming rural character and landscapes. |
| Infrastructure and highways considerations | One respondent recommends ongoing coordination with National Highways to ensure any rural employment sites align with infrastructure capacity and safeguard the strategic road network. |
| Environmental and habitat safeguards | Another respondent requests to protect ancient woodland, biodiversity corridors, sensitive landscapes and require brownfield‑first approaches with biodiversity gain. |
| Broader strategic / economic context (green jobs and digital economy) | One comment highlights national policy direction supporting green jobs, reuse of farm buildings, and investment in digital and transport infrastructure to shape rural employment policy. |
| Policy should be deleted | One respondent indicates the policy should be deleted without further reasoning. |
New agricultural and forestry buildings
Question MISC 6
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for new agricultural and forestry buildings that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 6? Or could policy DM 6 potentially be deleted?
13 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support retaining or updating a dedicated policy for agricultural/forestry buildings (retain existing Local Plan policy DM 6) | Many respondents support retaining or strengthening a standalone local policy for agricultural and forestry buildings, arguing it provides necessary safeguards on scale, landscape impact, biodiversity, and preventing misuse. |
| General agreement with having a policy (simple Yes responses) | Short responses indicate support for having a policy relating to agricultural and forestry buildings. |
| Policy could be deleted if covered elsewhere | One respondent believes the existing Local Plan policy could be deleted if adequate criteria exist in other policies such as landscape, Green Belt, and open countryside protections. |
| Concerns about misuse or unintended consequences (e.g., Trojan horse development) | Respondents raise concerns that agricultural building permissions can be exploited for later non‑agricultural or residential development, altering rural character. |
Rural diversification of land based businesses
Question MISC 7
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for the rural diversification of land based businesses that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 7? Or could policy DM 7 potentially be deleted?
12 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support retaining / not deleting existing Local Plan policy DM 7 (dedicated rural diversification policy) | Respondents emphasise the need to retain a dedicated rural diversification policy to ensure clarity, safeguard sensitive landscapes, and support proportionate rural enterprise. |
| General agreement / simple Yes responses | Short affirmative responses indicating general agreement with maintaining a policy on rural diversification. |
| Policy could be deleted if criteria appear elsewhere | One respondent considers the existing Local Plan policy unnecessary if clear criteria are duplicated or strengthened in other policies. |
| Need for clear criteria for rural business development | One respondent requests continued clear criteria assessing rural business proposals, especially regarding transport impacts, infrastructure capacity and countryside character. |
| Concerns about impacts on neighbouring residents | Another respondent notes that diversification can cause disturbance (e.g., motorbikes, quadbikes) and calls for restrictions to protect residential amenity. |
| Insufficient information to understand proposal | One respondent notes that more information is needed to understand implications of using countryside land differently. |
Equestrian development
Question MISC 8
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for equestrian development that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 8? Or could policy DM 8 potentially be deleted?
13 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement that an equestrian policy should be retained | Respondents express clear support for keeping a dedicated equestrian development policy, highlighting ongoing relevance. |
| Explicit requests not to delete existing Local Plan policy DM 8 | Several respondents state directly that existing Local Plan policy DM 8 should not be deleted. |
| Concerns about planning abuse and enforcement relating to Traveller developments | One comment raises concerns about exploitation of current policy, where stables and hardstanding precede caravan use and retrospective permissions, suggesting stronger enforcement and restoration requirements. |
| Need for water management and pollution safeguards at equestrian sites | One respondent highlights the need to manage runoff, ammonia and phosphorus pollution from equestrian uses, especially in river and estuarine catchments. |
| Comprehensive support for retaining existing Local Plan policy DM 8 with expanded criteria (heritage, biodiversity, landscape, traffic) | A detailed response supports retaining existing Local Plan policy DM 8 with expansion to cover biodiversity net gain, ancient woodland protection, limits on large-scale commercial equestrian facilities, animal welfare, and links to rights of way. |
| Existing Local Plan policy could be deleted if covered elsewhere | One respondent indicates existing Local Plan policy DM 8 could be deleted if light pollution, landscape and Green Belt criteria are already addressed elsewhere. |
Shopfronts
Question MISC 9
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for shopfronts that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 16? Or could policy DM 16 potentially be deleted?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for retaining a dedicated shopfronts policy (retain existing Local Plan policy DM 16) | Many respondents support keeping or updating a standalone shopfronts policy to ensure high-quality, locally distinctive design, especially in conservation areas and historic centres. |
| General agreement / simple Yes responses | Respondents provide brief confirmation that a dedicated shopfront policy should remain. |
| Concerns about signage quality, garish shopfronts and visual impact | Comments highlight poor signage standards, garish shopfronts and negative impacts on street scene, calling for stronger controls. |
| Heritage and historic environment protection | Respondents emphasise conservation area protection, heritage sensitivity, and avoiding insensitive alterations. |
| Existing Local Plan policy could be deleted if criteria covered elsewhere | One respondent indicates the policy could be deleted provided design and heritage criteria are adequately covered in other policies. |
Advertisements
Question MISC 10
Do you think that the new Local Plan should have an individual policy for advertisements that takes forward the content of current Local Plan (Part Two) policy DM 17? Or could policy DM 17 potentially be deleted?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support retaining a dedicated advertisements policy (retain existing Local Plan policy DM 17) | Many respondents argue a standalone advertisement policy is needed to address local distinctiveness, conservation areas, sensitive heritage settings, ecological impacts, and to supplement national regulations. |
| Suggest deletion of existing Local Plan policy DM 17 if covered elsewhere | One respondent believes existing Local Plan policy DM 17 could be deleted if adequate coverage and prominence are provided under other policies, with strong emphasis on countryside protection and enforcement. |
| Heritage and conservation area protection | Strong concerns about visual clutter, inappropriate illuminated signage, harm to conservation areas, lack of enforcement, and need for stricter controls in historic areas. |
| Driver safety and visual distraction | Concerns include distraction to drivers, especially near strategic road networks, and impact of large hoardings or digital billboards. |
| Enforcement concerns – poor control of signage | Comments highlight inadequate enforcement against inappropriate signage, illuminated window displays, temporary banners, and unpermitted digital screens. |
| Healthy advertisements / public health considerations | One respondent’s suggestions include discouraging unhealthy product advertising (fast food, vaping, alcohol) near schools and supporting positive, inclusive messaging. |
| Environmental and ecological impacts (light pollution, wildlife) | Another respondent raises concerns about lighting impacts on nocturnal species, ancient woodland edges, wildlife corridors, and high-energy LED displays. |
| Cumulative visual clutter and urban design impacts | Need for clear guidance on cumulative impacts of signage, avoiding clutter in high streets, rural gateways and sensitive landscapes. |
| Revenue opportunities / insufficient information | One comment suggests that councils could raise revenue through advertising but also notes lack of information on countryside land use implications. |
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.