The greater the support for both the built historic environment and the new historic environment the greater the potential or Cheshire East be it through targeting grant funding applications for key infrastructure needs and/ or the core requirements to make this area thrive. TA is the biggest USP of the area.

1. Enhancement of Historic Areas to remove modern street furniture with the
integration of classical style timepieces should be encouraged and pursued wherever
possible with clear preferred guides set out for each part of the City.
2. Enhancement of Setting with funding grants and financial incentives from all tiers of
Government for Private Investors especially those contributing actively towards
achieving Net Zero through Embodied Energy/ Carbon Capacity rich measures, i.e.
Retention of Old Builds.
3. Archive Pooling of invaluable source material, such as Historic Photographs, Oil
Paintings, such as “Memory Lane” featured on InYourArea Magazine to enrich
existing material archives.
4. New officialising of Non-Designated Heritage Assets must be actively supported even
if informed by the (wider) community thereby providing some possibility of
removing these from risk of demolition.
5. Incentives must be provided to those dependable sincere third party investors that
take on, maintain and protect said sites against their annihilation from the
streetscape with rescue-packages actively promoted and supported once again with
a trusted Directory creating goodwill amongst the local community.
6. Opportunity to meet or correspond on Zoom Conference Call regarding key areas,
buildings and places at risk where key stakeholders, such as property owners may be
better placed to engage in positive and constructive discussion through third parties,
such as myself and a trusted panel of experts in their fields and sectors who could
enable these people and organisations to maximise their civic heritage, whilst
proactively striving to protect more historic buildings from decline and/ or
demolition where a strategy package for raising the revenue to do this could be
arranged and facilitated.
7. Defining Character Areas- zoning symmetrical parallel construction recommended
where distinctive individualised properties remain as checked against authentic
archive blueprints. This will ensure high-quality housing for everyone reducing the societal divides between misperceived “good areas” where affluent people reside in
historical style properties and less advantaged reside in contemporary ones.
8. Industry should be conserved at former industrial complexes, such as Economic
Docks with equivalent sites offering modern-day uses, alongside traditional uses
such as export and import of raw materials at places such as Docks and Port
encompassing: ICT sector, Green Research & Development, etc.
9. Every effort must be made to reach out to Property Owners, especially
Housebuilders that are pursuing demolition of long-beloved buildings, especially
those with demonstrable evidence of Holy Worship.
10. Every effort must be made to reach out to Property Owners, especially
Housebuilders that are pursuing demolition of landmark buildings, especially those
with key links to an area’s founding or history locally.
11. All Powers to monitor, collaborate with existing and/ or new property owners to
conserve these buildings should become mandatory with appointed Community
Champions for Civic Heritage that area direct link between Local Authorities and said
wider key stakeholders to prevent demolition of structures that may be at risk of
destruction from vandalism, urban exploration and demolition.
12. Reconstruction Programme harnessing existing limited crafts people’s skillsets to be
used as a fundraising vehicle to bring back buildings that may have been demolished
to dissuade future demolition as a choice by property owners and by means of
expanding these otherwise lost skillsets that are at live risk of becoming extinct from
the UK.
13. Checklist of buildings at high risk must be expanded beyond the existing groups and
organisations that are saturated with high caseloads, such as SAVE Britain’s Heritage,
etc so that dialogue channels can be created and fostered between Community
Champions for Civic Heritage.
14. Bespoke-tailored funding packages for Properties at Risk of decline or demolition
should be integrated with Local, Regional and Central Government-funding as a
means of regional economic output through the return on investment that may
support other key grant funding capital infrastructure projects, such as
transportation and drainage improvements.

1. Provide a directory of approved and trusted Conservation Specialist Contractors- this
will be key for repairs and maintenance reducing costs for all parties, expediting the
physical process of regeneration and smoothen planning work schedules so that
finer detail may be considered on priority cases or those that may be at risk of
consequential repair, such as Places of Worship and detached Buildings with flat
roofs, etc at higher risk of damage than customary dwellings.
2. These same people should be readily contactable for new construction
3. Encourage smart building methods and use of TVA as meticulously explained in this
SPD outlining “Breathing” Solid Wall Construction using older style materials thereby
reducing maintenance cost which combined with the approved contractor directory
will further drive down costs, time and effort for everyone.
4. Alterations- must introduce a simplified listed building consent form and application
process that is streamlined encouraging better maintenance of Old Builds and
reducing the rising propensity of builders to allow buildings to deteriorate, such as
the Historic Pub that had to be rebuilt in Kilburn, London post 2015.
5. Provide specialist Heritage Arts & Craft Skills Programmes that anyone can learn and
use so that these high cost tasks can eventually stabilise in price making them more
affordable and available to those that don’t have the time to do this themselves or
may be risk averse even.
6. Extensions- there must be a proactive emphasis on in-keeping structural fabric to
prevent future errors, such as the Municipal Building depicted in the SPD being
replicated again thereby harming the Conservation value.
7. New Housing Estates should adopt historical archival blueprints, ie. A Georgian,
Victorian or Edwardian layout with the likeliest period architecture utilised where
this area remained greenbelt until the 1950s.
8. Area Expansion of housing must revert to traditional timeless designs that confer
many practical advantages over modern styles that are harder to maintain are
timeless with regard to dating and ensure a more evenly distributed community
atmosphere in the long-term future.
9. Infrastructure should be appropriately considered for existing and new areas so that
no one area is at risk of becoming congested through traffic for a particular
commodity, such as Schools, Doctor Practice, Dental Practice, etc.
10. Site Layouts should complement the historic layout with a view to Post 1950s
contemporary Architecture out of place being one day demolished to reinstate Long
lost beloved buildings from before the World Wars that could blossom economically
today.
11. Building Form shouldn’t permit for dated modern structures that delineate and
essentially divide communities between the old and new parts of any one location.
12. Façade Design mustn’t be compromised for contemporary architecture, especially in
view of coveted Heritage Status for any one area being at risk of being lost if said
contemporary architecture is pursued.

Authentic TA with ban on demolition of structures constructed prior to 1950 will provide the greatest universal success across all Local Plan themes and topics.

1. Identify recurring applicants that are harming civic heritage, be this across
Conservation Areas, Non-designated heritage assets or elsewhere with experience of
demolition to date- this should be considered before granting permission to apply or
acquire planning approval.
2. Enforcement Penalties for key stakeholders that purposely allow their properties to
fall into decline and hoped eventual demolition through this tactic, which is more
prevalent since 2020.
3. Create an Action Plan to deter persons or organisations from pursuing demolition,
such as financial incentives, sincere investor network directory set by Central
Government to offload for profit and enforced Design Codes that cannot be
manipulated through semantics like Design Guides in isolation as has happened
elsewhere. This must be kept for emergency instances where there is an expected
threat of decline or demolition.
4. Agreed that temporary alteration of heritage sites, such as stairs or ramps for
wheelchairs should be utilised to prevent deleterious loss of historic surroundings
and features alike.
5. Full Pre-Consultation publicised and utilised to ensure appropriate Design Codes for
new housing alongside positioning and layout in case volunteer assemblies may
assist property owners with restoration of historic buildings.
6. Brick by brick Analysis undertaken of projects set for Traditional reconstruction so
that these statistics may provide both the Council with evidence for green grant
funding support for other key infrastructure projects, such as Transportation and Drainage Defences and property owners may incur a discretionary reduction in
associated reconstruction costs of heritage buildings and vistas.
7. Ability to lock feedback in for Consultation automatically unless the council can alert
interested consultees in taking part again whether they are locally, regionally or
nationally based.
8. Special partnerships with Property Owners of historic buildings at risk of decline/
demolition to discreetly support them with the option to publicise this accordingly to
reach out to others in the same position to secure alternative use for these
structures as opposed to demolition.
9. Proactive effort to stop Breaking and Entering style of “Urban Explorers” who are
coincidentally apparent whenever demolition is scheduled for buildings especially
since 2020.
10. LAs to proactively work closely alongside Community Champions and other leading
Heritage Groups, such as English Heritage giving these organisations a voice on the
frontlines, especially where so many buildings are presently being overlooked for
additional guidance and/ or support due to cost and time restraints facing these
same groups and organisations (including the LA).

1. Provide all possible support for the reconstruction of Old Builds as is happening
elsewhere across Europe, especially Budapest, Hungary, North America, etc to
significantly increase Embodied Energy/ Carbon storage.
2. Establish a Plan to adopt Unadopted Roads or supply key services, such as
carriageway resurfacing as disabled access and entry/ exit of Emergency Vehicles is
presently a cause for concern.
3. Provide Pre-Approval and agreement of specialist Conservation Area style Historic
Street Furniture, such as Cast Iron Lamp Posts, Bins and Planters for this prime
Conservation Area including installation, maintenance costs (where appropriate).
4. Provide full access to the Archive Resources (at no/minimal cost) as an invaluable
incentive for existing and parallel undisclosed third Party Investors. Discretionary
waivers may be appropriate for those third parties proactively working to prevent
decline and demolition of historic buildings.
5. Car Parking on and off street should be supported to ensure freedom of choice for
everyone, accessibility and connectedness.
6. Car Parking abodes should be tastefully designed like modern-day stables for
vehicles that are in-keeping with the built historic environment.
7. Provide publicly published names of consultees willing to work alongside the Local
authority and other key stakeholders, such as property owners and undisclosed third
party investors, etc. 8. Provide select tours for prospective investors and housebuilders of existing
traditional architecture where Design Codes of this identical style would
complement both old and new architecture bending the area better more
cohesively, eg. the form and layout of Oxford City Centre which has changed
minimally structurally since the 1800s.
9. Provide a focused effort on utilising people’s skillsets on a meritocratic basis, ie.
Procure specialists and volunteers that could work together on key emergency
projects, such as Historic buildings at risk without layered bureaucracy on achieving
positive outcomes, such as Community Assets where deadlines can be thwarted by
separate third parties.
10. Create a Top Ten Historic Buildings at Risk Register where appropriate conditions,
such as security against Urban Exploration, etc can be utilised safeguarding these
structures, providing the respective property owners peace of mind whilst actual
scope for revitalising these for solid economic gain.
11. Infrastructure assessments should be fully outlined, such as Air Quality risk from new
construction at presently congested areas, hence the case for Traditional
Architecture that will confer longevity benefits in the long-term with as much free
car parking as possible.
12. Free Car Parking may be monitored through expected proof of purchase when
visiting, eg. minimal £1.00 at a shop encouraging partnerships between private
businesses and LAs.

To:
Cheshire East Council
Delamere House
Delamere Street
Crewe
Cheshire CW1 2LL
Date: 3rd August 2026
Representation to Cheshire East’s new Local Plan
I welcome the opportunity to comment on the scope of Cheshire East Council's new Local Plan.
I support the principle of growth and recognise that Cheshire East needs new homes, employment opportunities and investment. However, the Local Plan represents an opportunity to consider not simply how much development is required, but where it should take place, what form it should take, and whether the infrastructure and environment are capable of supporting it.
In my view, the central objective should be to create thriving, sustainable communities rather than simply maximise the number of homes that can be accommodated.
1. Growth should be infrastructure-led and sustainable
The Local Plan correctly identifies infrastructure capacity as an important factor in determining the amount and distribution of development. I strongly support this approach.
There is already significant pressure on infrastructure and services across parts of Cheshire East, including GP and healthcare provision, school places, roads and highways, parking, bus services, rail connectivity, cycling infrastructure, broadband, sewage and drainage, community facilities, green spaces and walking routes.
The concern is not simply that individual developments may place additional pressure on one particular service. It is that the cumulative effect of successive developments can gradually exceed the capacity of the infrastructure serving a community.
The Local Plan should therefore require a robust, place-specific assessment of existing infrastructure capacity before significant additional growth is allocated. It should not be sufficient to demonstrate that an individual development makes an acceptable contribution towards infrastructure in isolation. The assessment needs to consider the cumulative impact of existing commitments, developments already underway and proposed allocations.
Infrastructure should also include green infrastructure. Parks, open spaces, walking routes, cycling routes, access to nature, wildlife corridors and other green and blue infrastructure are not optional extras. They are fundamental components of healthy and resilient communities.
The Council itself recognises that green infrastructure, health facilities and community services are part of the infrastructure required to support growth. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
2. Development should prioritise brownfield and previously developed land
I strongly support the Council's stated intention to maximise the use of brownfield and underused land and to consider sites outside the Green Belt before considering Green Belt release.
This principle should go further and become a fundamental component of the spatial strategy.
Cheshire East should undertake a genuinely comprehensive assessment of opportunities for:
• brownfield development;
• vacant and underused land;
• redevelopment of existing developed sites;
• conversion and refurbishment of existing buildings;
• appropriate higher-density development within existing settlements;
• town-centre residential development; and
• mixed-use regeneration.
Only once these opportunities have been properly identified and assessed should pressure for development of greenfield land be considered.
This approach has several advantages. It can reduce pressure on countryside and agricultural land, make better use of existing infrastructure, support town centres and reduce the need for people to travel by car.
It can also help address the environmental impact of construction. The Council's own consultation document recognises the importance of embodied carbon and specifically identifies the reuse and refurbishment of existing buildings rather than demolition as an important consideration. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
The Local Plan should therefore establish a clear "reuse and regenerate before demolish and build new" principle.
3. Regeneration of town centres should be a major part of the housing strategy
The changing nature of town centres presents an opportunity rather than simply a problem.
Macclesfield is a good example of a town centre facing the same structural challenges seen across the UK: changing shopping habits, online retail, changing working patterns and the resulting loss or decline of traditional retail premises.
The answer should not be to continue treating town centres primarily as retail destinations.
The new Local Plan should actively encourage mixed-use town centres, incorporating residential accommodation alongside shops, cafés, restaurants, leisure, cultural, community and employment uses.
Appropriately located residential development can bring people into town centres throughout the day and evening. A larger resident population can in turn support local businesses, leisure facilities and services, creating a positive cycle of regeneration.
The Council's own scoping document recognises that successful town centres increasingly depend on a broader mix of uses and specifically identifies residential development, community facilities and leisure as part of this diversification. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
This should therefore be a central part of the Local Plan's strategy for accommodating growth.
4. Protect green space and create more opportunities to access nature
A growing population needs more than houses.
It needs places to walk, exercise, socialise, relax and interact with nature.
The Local Plan should therefore set ambitious and measurable standards for the provision and protection of parks, public open spaces, playing fields, walking routes, cycling routes, woodland, hedgerows, wildlife corridors and other green and blue infrastructure.
The objective should be that population growth results in more accessible green space and better opportunities for active travel, rather than a gradual reduction in the amount and quality of green space available to residents.
This is particularly important because access to green space is directly connected with health and wellbeing. The consultation document itself recognises that green spaces, recreation and community facilities are important determinants of health and that the Plan may need to establish local standards for outdoor recreation and Local Green Spaces. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
Green space should therefore be treated as essential infrastructure and planned alongside housing, schools, healthcare and transport.
5. Protect biodiversity and take account of cumulative environmental impacts
The new Local Plan should adopt a genuinely strategic approach to biodiversity.
Development should not be assessed simply on the basis of whether an individual site can technically achieve a biodiversity net gain calculation. The wider ecological context also matters.
Particular attention should be paid to:
• wildlife corridors;
• rivers, streams, ponds and reservoirs;
• woodland and mature trees;
• hedgerows;
• protected species;
• habitats adjacent to development sites;
• the cumulative loss of habitat across a settlement; and
• the indirect effects of development on adjoining ecological systems.
A site's ecological significance cannot necessarily be understood by looking at the development footprint alone. Impacts can extend into adjoining habitats and water environments, with consequences for species and ecological connectivity.
The Local Plan should therefore require cumulative ecological impacts to be considered at settlement and strategic levels, not simply application by application.
The Council already identifies reversing biodiversity decline, protecting trees and hedgerows, enhancing green infrastructure and supporting nature recovery as important issues. These ambitions should be translated into strong and measurable policies. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
6. Climate change should influence where development takes place, not just how buildings are constructed
Climate resilience should not be treated primarily as a matter of installing better technology in individual buildings.
The location of development is itself a major climate and sustainability decision.
Development in locations that require residents to drive for work, education, healthcare, shopping and leisure can create long-term transport emissions and car dependency which cannot easily be designed out afterwards.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise locations where residents can realistically access services and employment by walking, cycling and public transport.
At the same time, development should be designed to manage flooding, surface water, overheating, biodiversity loss and other climate risks.
I particularly welcome the consultation's recognition of embodied carbon and the importance of reuse and refurbishment of existing buildings. This should be reflected in the eventual policies and not remain simply an aspiration. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
7. Heritage should be regarded as an asset, not an obstacle to development
Cheshire East's historic buildings, townscapes and landscapes are an important part of what makes the borough distinctive.
The Local Plan should support the adaptive reuse and continued occupation of historic buildings, rather than allowing buildings to fall into disrepair before being replaced by new development.
Heritage-led regeneration can also form part of the solution to the challenges facing town centres.
Development should be expected to respond to local character and heritage rather than imposing generic housing designs that could be located anywhere in the country.
I welcome the Council's proposal to consider heritage sensitivity, adaptive reuse and heritage-led regeneration as part of the new Local Plan. (localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk)
8. Cumulative impacts need to be properly addressed
One of the most important issues for the new Local Plan should be the cumulative impact of development.
A development can appear acceptable when considered in isolation but become unsustainable when considered alongside numerous other developments in the same settlement.
This applies to traffic, parking, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewage, public transport, biodiversity, landscape, green space and community facilities.
The Local Plan therefore needs a methodology for assessing cumulative development pressure at settlement level, rather than relying primarily on individual planning applications to identify and mitigate problems.
This is particularly important in smaller settlements. A settlement cannot necessarily absorb development at the same rate as a larger urban area simply because there is technically developable land available.
The capacity of a settlement's infrastructure, services, environment and community should be a determining factor.
9. Planning conditions and developer commitments must actually be enforced
The effectiveness of the Local Plan ultimately depends on implementation.
There is little value in requiring trees to be retained, ecological measures to be followed, pollution controls to be implemented or construction management plans to be complied with if these commitments are not subsequently enforced.
I have personally observed examples on new development sites where trees identified on approved plans for retention, have nevertheless been felled; where required protective fencing has not been erected in accordance with a Construction Management Plan; and where construction-site flood water has been pumped towards a river via a route passing over the roots of a protected tree. This behaviour has persisted despite the site manager and CEC Planning Enforcement being made aware.
Whether individual incidents result from deliberate non-compliance, poor supervision or inadequate enforcement, they demonstrate a wider point: planning policy must be accompanied by effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
The new Local Plan should therefore include measurable outcomes not only for what development is approved, but for what is actually delivered and maintained.
Where developers commit to infrastructure, landscaping, biodiversity measures, tree protection, drainage or environmental mitigation, there should be clear responsibility, timescales, monitoring and consequences for non-compliance.
10. The Local Plan needs measurable outcomes that reflect the quality of places created
I welcome the proposal for the new Local Plan to contain measurable outcomes.
However, those measures should extend beyond conventional planning metrics such as the number of homes permitted or completed.
The Council should measure whether development is actually creating better places.
Potential indicators could include:
• infrastructure capacity relative to population growth;
• GP and healthcare capacity;
• school capacity;
• sewage and drainage capacity;
• access to parks and green space;
• walking and cycling accessibility;
• public transport accessibility;
• biodiversity and habitat connectivity;
• tree and hedgerow retention;
• town-centre vacancy and footfall;
• reuse of brownfield land and existing buildings;
• embodied carbon;
• delivery of affordable housing;
• community facility provision; and
• compliance with planning conditions and environmental commitments.
This would give the Plan a much stronger focus on outcomes rather than simply development delivery.
Conclusion
I support the preparation of a new Local Plan and I support appropriate growth in Cheshire East.
However, I believe the Plan should establish a clear hierarchy for accommodating that growth:
First, reuse and regenerate existing buildings and previously developed land.
Second, make better use of existing settlements, including appropriate town-centre and mixed-use development.
Third, ensure that development is located where existing infrastructure can support it, or where the necessary infrastructure can be delivered before or alongside the development.
Only then should pressure for further greenfield development be considered.
Growth should enhance communities rather than simply expand them.
The more important question is:
What level and form of growth can be accommodated while maintaining — and ultimately improving — the infrastructure, green spaces, biodiversity, heritage, character, health and quality of life that make established communities successful places to live?
I would encourage Cheshire East Council to make this principle central to the new Local Plan.
The Council has an opportunity to produce a plan that does more than accommodate housing numbers. It can create a framework for well-connected, environmentally resilient, economically vibrant and genuinely sustainable communities. That should be the ambition for Cheshire East through to 2045.

I would be grateful if you would keep me informed about any future progress/developments.
Regards,
Tom Mather

There is a need to give greater protection to non -registered heritage assets. Wilmslow residents want Lindow Moss to become a registered heritage asset as well as being an SSSI.

Buffer zones are required to protect heritage assets.

The National Trust is strongly supportive of an approach which prioritises heritage conservation. Heritage assets are a finite resource, and as such should be given strong protection in local policy. We would welcome an acknowledgement in policy of the need to support development which enables the ongoing conservation of heritage assets.

Mobberley:
Devaluation surrounding properties prevents economic village growth
Overpopulation doesn’t protect/enhance historic environment & community - Youth club already above demand

Mobberley’s historic character and rural setting should be assessed at site-selection stage. Assessment should consider the Conservation Area, listed and non-designated heritage assets, their settings, important views and the contribution surrounding open countryside makes to their significance. Development capacity should be reduced or sites rejected where necessary to avoid harm, rather than assuming design can mitigate every impact. The cumulative effect of multiple developments around the village on its historic form, rural approaches and landscape setting should also be assessed.

Nether Alderley features in the Domesday Book and has a long association with the
Stanley Family. The Parish although relatively small in scale has over 180 sites
recorded on the National Heritage Gateway which identifies 63 listed buildings,
mostly Grade II listed, although St Mary`s Church is Grade I listed. The PC would
welcome the new Local plan recognising important local heritage assets

5.127: Chelford Parish Council supports policies which seek to protect heritage assets within the borough.

Wilmslow Town Council believe that protection of the heritage asset should include an effective buffer zone to prevent harm to the setting.

5.127
Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan policy TH2 defines the Lindow Moss Historic and Cultural Landscape. Despite this there have been a number of developments which have harmed the area. Greater weight must be given to this policy, particularly considering the impact of cumulative multiple developments.

Cheshire East is fortunate to be a rich and diverse historic environment with a plethora of heritage and non-designated assets now identified through the council's Local List and the recently adopted Heritage and Local List SPD. We fully endorse the statement that "the new local plan will need to balance the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment with the delivery of housing, employment and infrastructure". What processes and methodologies will be deployed to best achieve that balance?

Heritage isn't only listed buildings and conservation areas. It's also the landscape, setting, views, historic environment and distinctive places that give Cheshire East its identity. In my 40 year career in marketing I’ve worked with Clients up and down the UK and when you say “I’ve live in Cheshire” the response is “how lovely”. Protecting this reaction should be at the forefront of all planning and growth, don’t lose what makes the region great, it’s why we all choose to live here. Protecting the countryside, doesn't necessarily mean freezing Cheshire East in aspic, it is at the core of what makes us Cheshire.
To flag one item, Cheshire East’s support of Jodrell Bank is admirable and should continue to be a priority to ensure that we don’t lose this famous landmark, it’s an amazing and significant asset that puts the region on the world map.

Absolutely object to this project being in Ashley

5.125
We look forward to liaising with officers regarding the development of the Local List of non-designated heritage assets following adoption of the Heritage and Local List SPD.

5.126
These are irreplaceable historic assets for which we are custodians. They are important in providing the sense of place missing from so much new development.

This is particularly relevant to Site 4376 - see previous comments regarding the Heritage Report in 2013

Transition Wilmslow welcomes the recognition of heritage assets, given their importance to quality of life, the visitor economy and in projecting a positive image of Cheshire East. We strongly support the agenda in para 5.127. We wish to see a landscape scale approach to heritage and countryside assets, as shown by the Lindow Moss Landscape Partnership.

We welcome the aspiration for Conservation Areas but proposals identified in Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan and worked up for WTC by specialist consultants have not been progressed because CEC claim unavailable staff resources.

Rules for adding insulation and renewable generation in Conservation Areas are critical.

We fully support and share the passion for conserving and enhancing the natural environment being a highly valued asset in Cheshire East. After all the country attracts significant tourism because of these assets. How will you assess and collate the directory of these assets?

Haughton Moss can contribute natural capital such as Wildlife Site Citation CE376, a remnant of Haughton Moss which once covered an extensive area of land and is not a mosaic of damp acidic grassland of species rich neural grassland.

An historic pub dating back to 1629, grade II listed and the only pub over the centuries serving historically residents and local farmers from Haughton Hall Estate and surrounding dairy farms and people travelling the A49 route. It is mentioned in the Doomsday book (1086). It has survived until 2025 and has a listed crown bowling green in the garden. We would love it to survive as a core community asset.

How can we be involved in the designation and hierarchy of designated sites and with the Cheshire & Warrington local nature recovery strategy? Working with CEC on these policies would support the passion this rural parish has for the rural economy, landscape, environment, agriculture and this element of the CEC local plan to contribute local evidence on housing and agricultural needs, community assets and future sustainability as the Plan develops.

Weston and Crewe Green contain many period properties and their setting should be protected as part of the local plan, as with other areas of Cheshire

The council should ensure that all heritage assets and their settings are protected, enhanced and reused where possible and practicable for the benefit of future generations.

The rural hamlet of Haughton has a heritage based on farming and this needs to be protected not destroyed

Heritage assessment should inform site selection around Mobberley from the outset. Cheshire East's previous evidence has specifically assessed land at Ilford Way/Town Lane in relation to Mobberley Conservation Area, recognising the significance of the village's dispersed settlement pattern and rural landscape setting. Any assessment of Land north of Town Lane should therefore consider effects on the Conservation Area, listed and non-designated heritage assets, their settings, important views and the historic settlement pattern. Development capacity should reflect identified heritage sensitivity rather than relying on design or landscaping to mitigate harm after allocation.

The historic environment should be considered at the earliest stage of site selection, not only when planning applications are submitted. The Plan should protect both designated and locally important heritage assets, their settings, key views and archaeological remains, including where impacts arise cumulatively from multiple developments. Heritage-led regeneration and sensitive adaptive reuse should be prioritised, while new development should respect and strengthen the distinctive character of Cheshire East’s historic towns, villages and rural areas.

In Macclesfield there are a lot of old mills that are being left to go derelict. Will Cheshire East prioritise a way of getting these back into use to provide much needed housing and to protect the town's heritage.

ATC welcomes the commitment to conservation of historic environment. One such building in Alsager, The Old Mill, is in the middle of a conservation area (designated by CWT) adjacent to Hall Farm with its ecological richness extending from the Plough inn. Unfortunately it has been vacant for some time and subject to some vandalism. ATC would welcome policy initiatives that might address this situation.

The Trustees of Haughton Recreational Ground welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
The Haughton Recreational Ground is a distinctive and valued community asset located within Haughton Moss. It is owned and managed for the benefit of the community and forms an important part of the area's environmental, historical and social character. As Cheshire East develops its evidence base and policy framework, we request that the Haughton Recreational Ground and its contribution to the wider Haughton Moss landscape are explicitly recognised.