CWAC seeks solution for housing headache
Cheshire West and Chester Council has put forward three spatial options for its new local plan to contend with having its annual housing targets bumped from around 500 to more than 2,000 by the Labour government.
Before the increase, CWAC boasted a land supply position of close to 12 years – putting the authority on a strong footing – but since the increase that has dwindled to between two and three years against the required five years.
As the council looks to refresh its local plan, the merits of three different approaches are being weighed up in light of the need to significantly increase housing delivery.
Option A – Preserve Green Belt – housing delivery will be increased in Winsford and Northwich and Malpas, Farndon, Tattenhall, Tarporley would take increased share too.
Option B – Follow pre-increase distribution principles – this would require “significant Green Belt release around Ellesmere Port, Northwich, and Chester”, according to the council
Option C – Direct development in and around locations served by rail and bus services – this would focus housing around Chester, Winsford, and Ellesmere Port, as well as Hooton, Capenhurst, Elton, Acton Bridge and Mouldsworth. Some Green belt release would be required.
Labour is aiming to deliver 370,000 a year over the course of the parliament. To do so, it has raised local authority housing targets by as much as 1,300%.
Angela Rayner announced last year that the standard methodology for calculating housing need would be changing. As a result, local annual housing targets are going up everywhere except for some large cities; London, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, and Salford would all be required to supply fewer houses under Rayner’s new formula.
Redcar and Cleveland will see the largest increase in the North. Under the current methodology, the authority has to deliver just 45 homes a year. Rayner’s revised methodology will require Redcar and Cleveland to build 642 homes a year, a 1,300% increase.
Burnley has also seen a steep increase in housing need under Rayner’s new algorithm with the annual target rising from 51 to 396 – a 676% increase.
Related Articles
Analysis - Event Summary
Cheshire and North Wales Development Update 2025 | Summary, photos + slides
Are Cheshire and North Wales starring in a development fairytale to emulate that of Wrexham Football Club? As the script for an elected mayor evolves, how can this region take centre stage in the Devolution Priority Programme? Place North West’s annual exploration of the area put the spotlight on the changing times ahead.
Someone needs to remind the council (and the government) that this is not THEIR land, it belongs to the people. ‘Green Belt release’, euphemism for ‘ignore local people and concrete over the open country for the betterment of private house builders’. What a wonderful time to be alive.
By John Smith
The Christlton area of Chester and towards Tattenhall should be where they build houses for Chester. There’s a railway line there with no stations on it, just a couple of Expresses and Shuttle services just ripe for travel options into Chester or Crewe/Beyond. No doubt the NIMBYs would hate the idea but Chester can’t just keep using the Welsh side to expand.
By Anonymous
‘Christleton area should be further built on’ – how about the council takes control of regulating the vast volume of housing being used for students and as extractive HMOs ? There’d be no need for building for years, and it’d revitalize town centers across the region. Reduce the housing stock used as the passive income of greedy people, reduce the need to build on green land, increase walkability, infuse town centers with residents with a stake in their communities. No doubt we’ll just keep on building cheap sprawl instead, however !
By John Smith
@John Smith. I doubt its your land and its probably not collectively owned either. Housebuilders make profit selling houses. Landowners make super profit selling land to housebuilders, I think the betterment lies there. A Council has a duty to create plans defined by policy led by Government to meet the housing need
By Anonymous
I think these choices are well framed. For those not close to CWAC the northern half is greenbelt and southern not. The current strategy has put housing into Chester and most of the bigger towns/villages south of the greenbelt. I don’t have a huge issue with places like Farndon or Malpas taking housing, but let’s not kid ourselves those people have jobs in Chester, Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester or are hacking over to Crewe for the London trains, and those places have miserable public transport too. A strategy that bit the bullet on greenbelt and actually put new housing near rail infrastructure is a better solution, and then building demand on those lines improves the case to upgrade their frequency and speed. We also need to mention the other elephant in the room. The tighter CWAC and The Wirral are on housing the more gets displaced into Wales. Although I think Wrexham has got quite NIMBY I’d be the first to acknowledge those big new housing estates hanging off the A483 are bedroom communities for people who work in England.
By Rich X
More people, more houses, less land to grow food?
By Anonymous
@Anon – you’re missing my wider point – the council are only interested in building on greenfield sites, and not in anything more creative that would meet the need established by the government (their randomised priority setting being a different argument) – in this case, CWAC could formulate policy to return the student and HMO slums to housing tax payers and other contributing members of society, rather than having swathes of centrally located housing stock being used as passive income by the rent-seeking classes. My point about greenbelt isn’t that it’s communally owned, but that it’s a communal concept for the betterment of all – breaking up greenbelt temporarily benefits a very small group of financial stakeholders, and is a net negative for everyone over time. Short sighted politicians aren’t going to improve, I know I’m shouting into a void.
By John Smith
You talk about removing people from HMOs to free the properties up to be occupied by others. How does this resolve anything? People living in HMOs are often living there out of necessity because they can’t afford to buy or rent a house on their own. If there was enough housing available, at an affordable price, people wouldn’t need to live in house-shares!
By @John Smith
@ John Smith
You seem to have a significant misunderstanding about property ownership.
By Sten
Or is it a void that’s shouting
By Nay to nimbyism
Option C
Keep green belt
By Anonymous
How can they hope to add even more new houses in Ellesmere Port? There is not enough improvement in infrastructure for the vast swathes of estates already built here. No new dentists, doctors, hospitals, schools, bus routes, extra trains, even the roads are crumbling without any investment. The companies that buy up land, build and then sell these houses only have to add a new playground or some trees to be meet any sort of obligation to improve the area. It is not sustainable.
There is very little reason to shop locally, with the majority of shops in the town empty or being one of three revolving door options (takeaway, barbers or vape shop). Furthermore, who wants to buy these houses when the Govt. and CWAC are giving the refinery carte-blanche to spew more harmful chemicals into the air with less scrutiny, following a very poorly advertised public consultation.
By WorriedPortite
Absolute joke! They are proposing building on the back of a new estate which has a toddler playground next to what will become a major road and cut through to a bypass via a b road. There are plenty of better places to build than where they are proposing and the infrastructure cannot cope with the new developments already built and being built in the area.
By Anonymous