Ellesmere Port
Question EP 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Ellesmere Port, as set out in EP 1 'Ellesmere Port' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
43 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Town centre decline and regeneration | Strong concern is expressed about the decline of Ellesmere Port town centre, particularly long‑term vacant retail units. Respondents call for proactive intervention, including compulsory purchase if necessary, reallocation away from retail, and redevelopment for housing, business space and community uses. |
| Poor urban form, connectivity and public realm | Several representations highlight the impact of car‑centric 1960s design, poor walking and cycling links, lack of legibility, and degraded public realm. Suggestions include wholesale back‑of‑pavement redevelopment, improved streetscapes, cycle lanes, and green infrastructure. |
| Transport and strategic connectivity | Respondents emphasise the importance of improving rail, road and active travel connectivity, including potential new rail curves, reopening former lines, and early engagement with National Highways regarding impacts on the M53 and M56 corridors. |
| General support for policy approach EP1 | A large number of respondents express support for the overall policy approach for Ellesmere Port, often noting its strategic role, economic potential and importance within the borough settlement hierarchy. |
| Need for enhancement and scale of growth | A repeated theme is that while the policy is supported, it could be strengthened by accommodating growth commensurate with Ellesmere Port’s population, status and economic role. |
| Industrial growth, decarbonisation and Origin area | Strong support is expressed for industrial growth, industrial decarbonisation, low‑carbon fuels, carbon capture, and continued investment in the Origin area, including Stanlow, Protos and associated employment clusters. |
| Reuse of brownfield and redundant land | Many representations emphasise the importance of reusing brownfield, vacant or redundant sites, including former power stations, fertiliser plants and ageing office stock, as a sustainable regeneration strategy. |
| Housing growth and Green Belt considerations | Some respondents support housing expansion in and around Ellesmere Port, including limited Green Belt release linked to transport corridors, while others object to any Green Belt amendments. |
| Major infrastructure and Nationally Significant Sites | Detailed representations relate to nationally significant infrastructure and COMAH sites, particularly the Urenco Capenhurst complex, emphasising safeguarding, consultation with regulators, and avoiding sensitive land uses nearby. |
| Freight, waterways and multimodal transport | There is support for recognising the Manchester Ship Canal as critical infrastructure, safeguarding wharves, and requiring developments to maximise waterborne and rail freight to support modal shift and decarbonisation. |
| Environmental protection and designated sites | Natural England and others stress the need for robust assessment of impacts on designated sites, water quality and air quality, with clear mitigation and evidence requirements embedded in policy. |
| Landscape, green infrastructure and gateways | Support is expressed for policies requiring development to deliver landscape‑led gateways, canal‑side regeneration, green infrastructure, recreation, and enhanced walking and cycling connectivity. |
| Maintaining settlement separation and identity | One representation highlights the importance of maintaining physical separation and distinct identities between Ellesmere Port and Wirral settlements. |
| Negative perception of town centre decline | A small number of comments express deep dissatisfaction with the current condition of Ellesmere Port, describing it as having significantly declined due to retail competition and lack of investment. |
Question EP 2
Do you have any comments on the use of previously developed land within Ellesmere Port?
13 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for prioritising previously developed land (PDL) | The dominant theme is strong support for a ‘previously developed land first’ approach in Ellesmere Port, with respondents emphasising efficient use of land, regeneration benefits, and avoidance of unnecessary greenfield or Green Belt development. |
| Brownfield land for housing and regeneration | Several respondents support the use of redundant and underused brownfield sites for housing and mixed-use redevelopment, particularly where sites are no longer viable for industrial or commercial use. |
| Environmental and air quality concerns | Concerns are raised about air pollution monitoring in Ellesmere Port, with a lack of confidence expressed in the accuracy and transparency of monitoring data, particularly in the context of further development. |
| Historic environment and heritage considerations | Respondents emphasise that redevelopment of previously developed land should be accompanied by robust assessment of heritage assets, their setting, and the historic environment to inform appropriate design and layout. |
| Opposition to Green Belt release | Some representations explicitly oppose the use or release of Green Belt land, arguing that sufficient opportunities exist within previously developed land and that Green Belt should be protected. |
| Arguments that previously developed land (PDL) alone is insufficient to meet needs | A number of respondents, particularly landowners and promoters, argue that previously developed land within and around Ellesmere Port will not be sufficient on its own to meet housing and development needs, and that selective greenfield and Green Belt release will be required. |
| Viability, deliverability and constraints of previously developed land (PDL) sites | Detailed submissions stress the need for an evidence-based assessment of the availability, suitability and viability of PDL sites, noting that some land (e.g. Stanlow) is heavily constrained and may not come forward within the Plan period. |
| Support for greenfield and Green Belt development | One respondent takes the opposing view that the area has limited remaining natural value and supports widespread development, including removal of Green Belt designation. |
Origin - Stanlow and Thornton Science Park
Question EP 3
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Origin - Stanlow and Thornton Science Park, as set out in EP 2 'Origin - Stanlow and Thornton Science Park' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
15 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for policy approach EP3 / policy for Stanlow | The majority of respondents support policy approach EP3, recognising the importance of Stanlow and the surrounding employment areas in supporting economic growth, jobs and the wider industrial base over the plan period. |
| Safeguarding Stanlow as critical national infrastructure | On respondent emphasises the need to explicitly safeguard Stanlow as Critical National Infrastructure, ensuring that new development does not prejudice existing or future operations, including hazardous substances consent flexibility and COMAH safety requirements. |
| Low‑carbon energy transition and decarbonisation | Respondents support explicit recognition of Stanlow’s role in low‑carbon energy, hydrogen production, carbon capture and wider decarbonisation initiatives, including its central role within HyNet and Origin. |
| Thornton Science Park – role and expansion | Several comments seek stronger recognition of Thornton Science Park as more than a research facility, highlighting its role in supporting high‑tech start‑ups, skills, training, offices and innovation linked to the energy transition. |
| Flexibility for future industrial and employment uses | A detailed submission argues that the policy must allow flexibility for future industrial, energy and employment development, including greenfield land within the Stanlow area, to respond to changing technologies and market conditions. |
| Transport impacts and freight movement | Concerns are raised about increased HGV movements associated with growth at Stanlow and Thornton Science Park, particularly impacts on the M53 Junction 10 and M56 Junction 14, alongside support for maximising non‑road freight such as pipelines and the Manchester Ship Canal. |
| Opposition to safeguarding land for CO2‑producing industries | One respondent objects to safeguarding land for CO2‑producing industries, arguing instead that the area should be comprehensively redeveloped as brownfield land. |
| Environmental impacts balanced against employment need | Some respondents acknowledge environmental impacts associated with petrochemical industries but consider these to be outweighed by the need for employment, skills retention and the potential for cleaner technologies over time. |
| Green Belt release and land to the east of Stanlow | A detailed representation proposes extending the Stanlow policy area to include land to the east, arguing that parts of the Green Belt function poorly, align with the Eastern Growth District, and are required to deliver strategic energy infrastructure. |
Question EP 4
Do you have any comments on the use of previously developed land within Origin - Stanlow and Thornton Science Park?
5 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Emphasis on clean energy and future jobs | One respondent stresses that the primary focus of policy approach EP4 should be on enabling clean energy development and future‑focused employment, including hydrogen and bio‑based industries, rather than heritage considerations. |
| Heritage considerations as secondary | One representation considers the retention of heritage buildings to be incidental, arguing that the key priority should be inward investment, economic development and delivery of strategic energy infrastructure. |
| Support for development subject to safety and suitability | Conditional support is expressed for development where land is demonstrated to be appropriate and safe for housing and business uses. |
| General support for policy approach EP4 | Some respondents express straightforward support for the proposed policy approach without qualification. |
| Previously developed land and flexibility for greenfield use at Stanlow | Essar Energy Transition supports reuse of previously developed land within Stanlow but argues that delivery of the Stanlow Energy Park also requires development on greenfield land. A policy wording change is requested to support development of land at Stanlow for employment or related sui generis uses, to ensure flexibility and effectiveness. |
Origin - Protos
Question EP 5
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards Origin - Protos, as set out in EP 3 'Origin - Protos' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
16 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for policy approach EP5 | A clear majority of respondents express support or agreement with the overall approach of policy approach EP5, particularly its focus on strategic employment locations and future‑facing economic uses. |
| Support for non‑road and multi‑modal transport | One respondent supports the emphasis on maximising opportunities for non‑road transport, including rail and waterborne freight, in line with national policy and decarbonisation objectives. Impacts on the strategic road network, particularly M56 Junction 14, are noted. |
| Requests to reflect extant consents and planned development at Protos | A detailed representation requests that the policies map explicitly identifies land at Protos with extant planning permissions and safeguarded land for future operational resilience, including the Energy Recovery Facility (ERF), Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) infrastructure and adjacent land. |
| Flexibility for low‑carbon and decarbonisation infrastructure | One respondent welcomes support for low‑carbon development but seek flexibility where decarbonisation infrastructure is the priority, including relaxing strict multi‑modal requirements and explicitly including the former CF Fertilisers site within the Protos employment area. |
| Need for flexibility to enable a wider range of synergistic uses | Peel and others support the policy in principle but caution against overly restrictive land‑use definitions that could prevent other employment or infrastructure uses benefiting from Protos’ unique nationally significant infrastructure and clustering opportunities. |
| Strategic importance of Ellesmere Port, Origin and Protos | An extensive representation emphasises the national, regional and borough‑wide importance of Ellesmere Port, Origin and Protos as an industrial and employment cluster, critical to net zero ambitions, decarbonisation, inward investment and long‑term employment growth. |
| Clarification and understanding of Protos | One respondent indicates a lack of understanding of what Protos is, suggesting that clearer explanation or mapping may be beneficial for public engagement. |
Question EP 6
Do you agree with safeguarding Origin - Protos for resource recovery and waste, reducing carbon emissions and sustainable energy generation?
6 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General support for policy approach EP6 | Several respondents indicate support or agreement with the approach set out in policy approach EP6, without raising detailed concerns or suggested changes. |
| Objection / lack of support | One respondent states that they do not support the policy, without providing further detailed reasoning. |
| Qualified support with proposed amendments | One detailed representation generally supports the intent of policy approach EP6 but proposes amendments. The respondent refers to a more detailed response set out elsewhere, indicating that changes are required for the policy to operate effectively. |
Question EP 7
Do you agree with safeguarding the level of consented waste capacity on specific plots at Origin - Protos (see also section 29 'Managing waste')?
5 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General opposition to the proposed approach | One respondent does not support the proposed policy approach. |
| General support for the proposed approach | Several respondents indicate support or agreement with the policy approach without detailed qualification. |
| Support for flexibility of consented waste capacity | A detailed representation supports flexibility in how consented waste capacity is treated, arguing that the policy should not restrict the development of an existing site to waste management uses only. The respondent notes that restricting flexibility would be contrary to evidence demonstrating an oversupply of waste provision and refers to a more detailed response provided elsewhere. |
Question EP 8
Do you have any comments on the use of previously developed land within Origin - Protos?
3 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Lack of support for the proposed approach | One respondent indicates that they do not support the proposed approach. |
| Limited local knowledge / reliance on secondary information | One respondent notes that they are taking the information about the area at face value, as they have no direct or on‑the‑ground experience of the location. |
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.