Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1279

Received: 03/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

This new standard calculation of housing need makes no sense unless these new homes are in the main affordable homes or even better council houses. If a borough has a predominance of less affordable houses compared with average earnings then all the more important to build cheaper houses at affordable rents.
This standard calculation has no felexibility. Surely the number of new homes should be driven locally from within in conjunction with employment possibilities & transport infrastructure. Where are these people going to work & how are they going to get there?

Comment

Representation ID: 1280

Received: 03/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

Brownfield sites should be explored before touching any green belt land

Comment

Representation ID: 1281

Received: 03/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

So many towns in Cheshire East are in need of regeneration. Brownfield sites, empty buildings in town centres are crying out for redevelopment. It’s time to accept the demise of the high street & get people living in town centres where the only thriving businesses are service providers.
Brownfield sites should be thoroughly explored before touching any green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 1309

Received: 04/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

Deliver necessary infrastructure to accommodate new housing developments. Green belt in Adlington is currently on offer to the authority the size of which could deliver 15,000 houses. Where are the children going to go to school? Where are residents going to find a doctor or a hospital bed? Planning should not be granted if the authority is not going to put the necessary infrastructure in place.
Green belt must be protected to maintain food security, natural habitats & vital access for local people who want to enjoy it. If land is farmed or grazed upon let it remain so.

Comment

Representation ID: 1310

Received: 04/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

Two statements in total contradiction. On the one hand green belt cannot be used for development if this compromises urban sprawl. On the other hand ‘strategic green belt’ also designed to maintain settlement identity appears to be threatened because it’s not in the national framework! This would appear to present a convenient open door policy for the snatching of Green belt. The local plan needs to clearly offer protection for any type of green belt that defines settlement separation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1354

Received: 05/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

As per previous comments delivery of necessary infrastructure needs to run alongside if not before building takes place. Providing a school, a community hub etc for large developments should be a non negotiable requirement for the developer & form part of the planning permission. Bloor homes have done this in Topsham Devon.

Comment

Representation ID: 1355

Received: 05/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

As per previous comments Green belt offers huge recreational opportunities which in turn promotes well being & should therefore be protected at all costs

Comment

Representation ID: 1356

Received: 05/08/2026

Respondent: JM Shaw

The Peak Cluster pipeline should not go ahead. The cost is astronomical compared with the short term gain as demonstrated in Norway. Safety is an issue as well as the destruction of wildlife habitats. Better to put money into more long term technology that reduces CO2 emissions at source.