Chester
Question CH 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Chester, as set out in CH 1 'Chester' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
65 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for policy approach CH1 (general agreement) | Broad or full agreement with the suggested policy approach for Chester, often without further detail but showing satisfaction. Some supportive comments ask for more ambition. |
| Objections / opposition | Opposition to overall policy approach CH1 or development in Chester; concerns include congestion, infrastructure pressure, loss of green space, or opposition to cycle lanes. |
| Green Belt protection | Strong emphasis on preserving Green Belt, fears of sprawl, loss of character, and pressure on services if released. |
| Infrastructure pressures | Concerns about hospital capacity, GPs, schools, police, congestion and the need for infrastructure before housing. |
| Transport and travel | Concern over congestion, sustainable travel, strategic road impacts, Park & Ride, and mixed views on cycling infrastructure. |
| Housing growth and density | Many argue Chester should take more growth, support higher densities, urban intensification, or propose specific site allocations. |
| Heritage and character | Need to preserve Chester’s historic environment; concerns about insensitive development or conflict with transport schemes. |
| Brownfield-first | Strong preference for using brownfield land first; concerns about greenfield loss and developer-led patterns. |
| Community facilities and Housing Mix | Concerns over lack of community hubs, poor housing mix, and mismatch with population needs. |
| Accessibility | Need improved access across cobbles and to the Rows while preserving historic character. |
| Consultation and process | Requests for clarity, transparency, proper recording of assumptions, and improved trust in consultation. |
Question CH 2
Do you have any comments on the suggested allocations/sites, set out above?
45 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Green Belt protection and avoidance of encroachment | Strong objections to releasing Green Belt land. Concerns include settlement coalescence, loss of countryside character, damage to biodiversity, and inappropriate siting for development. Development should be directed to brownfield land. |
| Dale Barracks redevelopment | Mixed representations on suitability. Concerns about remoteness and infrastructure, but MOD and landowners promote it as a sustainable, deliverable site suitable for release from Green Belt and capable of significant housing delivery. |
| Environmental/ ecological constraints | Concerns about protected habitats (e.g. barn owl sites), wetland loss, biodiversity impacts, and increased flood risk linked to natural drainage removal. |
| Transport, congestion and sustainable travel | Concerns about congestion, especially on A56 and hospital/zoo traffic. Support for public transport improvements, cycling/walking infrastructure, and strategic schemes like Park & Ride or Chester & Deeside Transport Scheme (CDTS). |
| Pressure on services | Warnings that GP surgeries, hospitals, schools, and local services are overstretched. Development should not proceed without required infrastructure and service capacity. |
| Housing allocation and mix | Calls for brownfield-first strategy, better affordable housing, more family homes, improved retirement housing, and reconsideration of certain allocations. Several site promoters argue for specific allocations. |
| Employment land and economic growth | Some support flexibility for mixed-use rather than employment-only designations. Chester Zoo supports policy enabling development within a defined Green Belt area. |
| Heritage considerations | Calls for robust assessment of heritage assets and settings. Some promoters argue their sites have limited or no heritage impact. |
Question CH 3
Do you have any views on how the aspirations of the One City Plan and Chester Gateway Regeneration Framework should be reflected through the new Local Plan?
22 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Climate change and sustainability | Climate considerations must be fully embedded into policy, ensuring infrastructure, development and regeneration are aligned with sustainability goals and long‑term environmental responsibility. |
| Role of One City Plan and Chester Gateway Strategic Regeneration Framework | Strategic vision documents (One City Plan, Chester Gateway Strategic Regeneration Framework) should shape the Local Plan, providing a clear framework for regeneration, sustainable growth, and improved connectivity. |
| Infrastructure capacity and service pressures | New development must not outpace essential infrastructure. Ensuring capacity in healthcare, education, transport and safety is crucial to avoid worsening existing pressures. |
| Heritage, character and Green Belt protection | Growth and regeneration must protect Chester’s unique historic character and surrounding Green Belt, prioritising brownfield land and sensitive design. |
| Housing growth concerns Development opposition | Some respondents strongly oppose new housing growth around Chester, viewing existing infrastructure and traffic conditions as already at capacity. |
| Community benefit and accountability | Planning processes must ensure meaningful community involvement and enforce deliverable benefits such as affordable homes, facilities, and green space, avoiding tokenistic engagement. |
| Terminology and clarity | Clear, consistent terminology should be used in planning documents to avoid confusion between different regeneration areas. |
| Support for Regeneration and Sustainable Growth | Regeneration is welcomed where it delivers sustainable, affordable, well-connected homes that support economic development and meet diverse community needs. |
Question CH 4
Are there any infrastructure requirements required to support the suggested policy approach, set out in CH 1 'Chester' above?
32 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Transport and highways | Comments highlight significant concern about existing transport pressures in Chester. Key issues include congestion on major routes, lack of sustainable transport infrastructure, inadequate cycling provision, poor rail service reliability and cost, need for improved station access, and the absence of strategic schemes like the Western Relief Road. |
| Housing growth concerns and overdevelopment | Many respondents object to further housing around Chester, citing infrastructure pressures, overburdened services, and distrust due to undelivered commitments from previous developments. |
| Green Belt, green space and environmental impacts | Respondents strongly value Green Belt land for wellbeing, wildlife habitat, climate resilience, and environmental health. Many stress harm already caused by recent developments. |
| Flooding, drainage and water infrastructure | Serious concerns raised regarding flood risk, outdated flood data, drainage inadequacy, and tidal river outfalls. Flooding has reportedly worsened since recent developments. |
| Access to services (health, education, utilities) | Essential services cannot cope with existing populations. GPs, hospitals, schools, and utilities are under strain with no clear plans for expansion. |
| Development viability and deliverability | Some comments highlight viability challenges that affect deliverability. One representation suggests only standard infrastructure is required. |
| General infrastructure requirements | Infrastructure should be delivered before new development. Respondents request transparency and publication of infrastructure plans. |
Question CH 5
Should the approach to public car parks and parking requirements in the city centre and surrounding area be amended to support new development?
28 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Opposition to reducing parking and concern about loss of parking capacity | Respondents emphasise that Chester still relies heavily on car use. They argue that reducing parking without credible alternatives will lead to increased congestion, overspill into residential streets, and a decline in city centre activity. Some express concern that building on existing car parks will further strain capacity and harm local businesses. |
| Support for Park & Ride / sustainable access models | Comments highlight park-and-ride schemes as a successful mechanism for reducing city-centre congestion while maintaining accessibility. Respondents support expanding or strengthening sustainable access options, including cycling, rail, bus and the Greenway. |
| Support for redeveloping car parks for housing / mixed use / urban transformation | Support for using car park land more efficiently through redevelopment—especially for residential or mixed uses—while consolidating essential parking elsewhere. Central urban space should prioritise housing, public realm, active travel and regeneration. |
| Support for reducing parking requirements | Brief responses indicating agreement with proposed changes to parking policy, without elaboration. |
| Broader opposition to growth / traffic concerns | One respondent expresses total opposition to any new housing developments, citing insufficient infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare. |
| Advocacy for free parking | One comment argues simply that parking should be free. |
| Support for sustainable transport hierarchy / reduced car dependence | Respondent advocates reducing reliance on the car and adopting a sustainable transport hierarchy in line with national policy. |
Question CH 6
Should the new Local Plan continue to allocate Chester Business Quarter for high quality office uses? If not, how can new office development in Chester be provided?
23 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Chester Business Quarter (CBQ) underperformance / viability concerns | CBQ has underperformed with low demand, viability issues and outdated model. |
| Office demand declining | Demand for office space is reduced due to homeworking and hybrid patterns; the market now has preference for smaller units for existing businesses rather than large office blocks. |
| Support for retaining office allocations | Many respondents support continued protection of Chester Business Quarter for high quality office space. |
| Preference for mixed–use / flexible approach | Rigid office-only allocations risk leaving land underused; Respondents recommend allowing mixed‑use development incorporating housing, leisure, community uses, or small office units. |
| Dead zones / antisocial behaviour | Business-only areas can be lifeless outside hours, and risk increasing antisocial behaviour. |
| Housing/ infrastructure concerns | Opposition to further housing in or around Chester due to infrastructure pressures. |
| Alternative office supply | Grade A office space needs are increasingly being met by refurbishment and change of use, rather than new builds; Chester Business Park performing better and capable of delivering viable office accommodation. |
Question CH 7
Do you agree with the suggested approach towards Chester Business Park
25 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for safeguarding Chester Business Park for employment use | Strong support for retaining the Business Park as a protected employment site. |
| Underutilisation and opportunities for diversification or enhancement | Some respondents feel the Business Park is underused or could be made more versatile, highlighting, infrastructure needs, and recent refurbishment evidence. |
| Objection to residential development at Chester Business Park | Objections based on sustainability concerns and car dependency. |
| Challenge to restriction on residential development | Some argue that Chester Business Park could take housing instead of greenfield areas. |
| Wider objection to housing in Chester | General objections to any new housing in Chester due to congestion and pressure on services. |
Question CH 8
Should there be a more flexible approach to uses supported within Chester Business Park?
24 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for flexibility / alternative uses | Respondents generally support allowing some flexibility for additional or alternative uses at Chester Business Park, depending on what is proposed. Many express conditional openness rather than firm support. |
| Protection of the Business Park for employment purposes / opposition to residential uses | Strong view that the Business Park should remain predominantly employmentfocused. Residential development is seen as inappropriate, unsustainable, harmful to employment land supply, and conflicting with Green Belt policy. |
| Concerns around infrastructure, access, parking and cumulative development pressures | Comments highlight the need for better infrastructure—parking, access, services, amenities—especially in the context of wider growth pressures around Chester. Includes strong objections to new housing on the grounds of traffic and insufficient local services. |
Question CH 9
Is the current policy approach to the University of Chester in current Local Plan (Part Two) policy CH 4 still appropriate?
21 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for existing policy approach | Respondents generally support continuation of current policy with emphasis on managing impacts and recognising the role of the University. |
| Requests for clarification or modification of current policy approach | Request to update references: replace Shrewsbury with Birkenhead and remove reference to Thornton Science Park. |
| Concerns about overdevelopment and infrastructure capacity | Strong objection to further housing due to congestion, pressure on services and existing infrastructure limitations. |
| Conditional / cautionary support for development | Support for integrated development contingent on clear assumptions and flexibility to update the plan. |
| Negative responses with no further detail | Responses simply state “No” or “No comment”, indicating opposition without further detail. |
Question CH 10
Should the policy approach in relation to protecting the historic importance of Chester, including the setting of the city and strategic open space; archaeology, Chester conservation area; key views, landmarks and gateways and historic skyline remain unchanged?
31 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Protection of Chester’s historic character and setting | Strong support for maintaining or strengthening heritage protection; emphasis on skyline, conservation areas, the Rows, archaeology, tourism importance; concerns about weak implementation. Plus general “Yes” responses |
| Weaknesses in policy Implementation | Policies are adequate but implementation is poor; specific developments cited as harmful to views and historic character. |
| Partnership and engagement on heritage policy | Historic England wishes to collaborate to strengthen and support robust, evidence-based heritage policy. |
| Concerns about development pressure / infrastructure | Objection to further housing due to congestion, lack of infrastructure capacity and cumulative pressure. |
| Green Belt protection and landscape setting | Reinforces importance of Green Belt around Chester; cites examiner findings that further release would harm historic setting. |
| Chester Gateway / Station area regeneration | Support for regeneration around station including consolidating existing parking into a new car park; and the need to balance heritage sensitivity with infrastructure improvements. |
| City centre management / public realm | Suggestions for improving historic environment: remove street traders, promote alfresco dining, address illegal e-bikes and rider behaviour. |
| Views, vistas and visual sensitivity | Stresses importance of preserving key views into and out of the city in new developments. |
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.