Under the new Labour Government, planning policy is changing - at pace and not necessarily for the better. Read Cllr Simon Eardley's latest comments and concerns about the potential implications for the Saughall and Mollington Ward which is rural in nature and surrounded by precious greenbelt and open countryside.
Cllr Eardley posted the following remarks on his councillor Facebook page on Wednesday 5th February 2025:
I sent the following comments to the meeting of Saughall and Shotwick Park Parish Council on Monday evening on this subject and have repeated them below.
The future of planning policy and its potential implications for the borough have been on the radar and discussed now for several months. I have summarised below some points which you may find of interest. In my view, this emphasises the value of the parish council pursuing its own Neighbourhood Plan option which I know you are actively considering.
- Cheshire West and Chester’s housing target has been significantly increased by government (CWaC have consistently provided circa. 1100 per year in recent years) to 1914 per year.
- Under previous rules CWaC had approx. 11 years land supply. But the new government target leaves CWaC with just 2-3 years supply.
- Because CWaC do not have 5 years land supply, the requirements of our Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans carry much less weight - with the balance in favour of the developer. And applications are more likely to be won at appeal by the developer.
- CWaC expect to receive speculative applications to develop land not previously identified in the Local Plan.
- These speculative applications, which would most likely have been refused prior to the new government targets, would likely be approved to meet the new targets.
- These speculative applications will likely be in rural areas, particularly green belt, which will impact upon existing communities. Essentially there will be no ‘brownfield first’ policy.
- CWaC has overachieved on its housing targets EVERY year since 2010 and has consistently built more houses than other local authorities in England.
Whilst I understand that there is a shortage of houses in England, I am most concerned to see sustainable development - where the required infrastructure like roads, schools and GP surgeries - are built alongside and the right type of houses. Brownfields should always be the first places to be developed, instead of Cheshire’s green fields – in my view. The reality seems to be that CWaC will be penalised by the Labour government for consistently overachieving on our existing housing targets - that is unacceptable – again, in my opinion."
The next bit is a little technical but important...I warned about all this prior to the general election last July...
Yesterday (4th February), I opposed at the CWaC Planning Committee an application for an ‘Energy Storage System’ (battery infrastructure) on agricultural land off Rectory Lane in Capenhurst. As part of this, it was argued by the applicant that this site was 'grey belt' land, probably as a result of an update to something called the 'National Planning Policy Framework' (NPPF) that was added in December 2024 by the Government. Grey belt is to be considered a new form of 'appropriate Green Belt development' on land which fulfils certain criteria.
The land in question in this particular instance had not been subject to a previous planning application - it is a green, agricultural field. It is astonishing to me that we appear to be in a position that applicants are able to argue that land such as this is somehow 'grey belt' when it demonstrably isn't. Where will all this end? I have extracted below some of the report which covers the 'discussion' around this for those who might be interested. The full report on this planning application can be viewed via this link:
https://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=827&MId=7280&Ver=4
To be clear: I am opposed to the industrialisation of the countryside and the greenbelt, whether that is in the name of ‘the environment’ or for other reasons. I will always seek to defend the greenbelt and open countryside in the Saughall and Mollington Ward. This is going to be harder going forward as a direct result of the policies of the Labour Government.
Extracts from CWaC Planning Officer report in respect of the land off Rectory Lane, Capenhurst planning application considered on 04 February 2025:
"6.23 - Grey belt is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising of previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143 of the NPPF. It appears that any land in the Green Belt can be grey belt land if it does not strongly contribute to these purposes, which are:
(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; or
(d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.
6.24 - In this case the applicant considers that this site does not strongly contribute to the relevant Green Belt purposes and is therefore grey belt land, for the reasons set out in their email of 10th January 2025.
6.25 - Paragraph 155 of the NPPF (as revised in December 2024) says that the development of grey belt land should not be regarded as inappropriate where:
a. The development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan;
b. There is a demonstrable need for the type of development proposed
c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and
d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157.
6.26 - In time, decisions by the courts and Planning Inspectors will help Councils to interpret and apply this new area of policy. The Government has also promised to publish further guidance on Green Belt in the near future. However, in the absence of detailed guidance it is considered that the land is not grey belt and its development would fail to check the unrestricted sprawl of Ellesmere Port in particular."
