Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1034

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

I support the retention and strengthening of Strategic Green Gaps, but their effectiveness depends on consistent application. Around Nantwich, the gap intended to maintain separation and settlement identity with neighbouring Crewe appears to have been progressively eroded through development approvals. This undermines public confidence in the designation and risks the very coalescence it was introduced to prevent. The review should examine not only the future role of Strategic Green Gaps but also whether existing protections have been effective in preventing the loss of meaningful separation between settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

The Council’s approach risks repeating past mistakes by treating land availability as the starting point rather than considering whether settlements can sustainably absorb further growth. Nantwich has already seen significant development, including speculative approvals, without corresponding infrastructure investment. Assessing sites individually fails to capture the cumulative impact on roads, schools, healthcare, drainage and the character of the town. The new Local Plan should not simply identify land that can be built on; it must identify where development can genuinely be supported. Previous growth patterns and infrastructure deficits must form a central part of the evidence base.

Comment

Representation ID: 1036

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

The spatial strategy must give genuine weight to infrastructure capacity and the cumulative impacts of past development. Nantwich has experienced significant growth, but delivery of supporting infrastructure has not kept pace. The assessment of future development locations should not consider sites in isolation; it must examine whether existing settlements can accommodate further growth without unacceptable pressure on roads, healthcare, education, drainage and community facilities. Strategic decisions should prioritise locations where infrastructure can support growth and where settlement identity, landscape character and green infrastructure can be maintained. Development should not be directed simply because land is available or commercially attractive.

Comment

Representation ID: 1037

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

A diverse housing supply is important, but the size of a site should not be used as a proxy for sustainability. Smaller developments can still have significant cumulative impacts, particularly in settlements that have already experienced substantial growth. The assessment of sites must consider whether existing infrastructure, services and transport networks can support further development, regardless of site size. Meeting targets for small and medium sites should not result in piecemeal expansion that undermines settlement identity, increases pressure on facilities or bypasses the need for strategic infrastructure planning. The cumulative impact of numerous smaller allocations must be properly assessed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1038

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

The approach to transport assessment must recognise the difference between theoretical mitigation and the reality experienced by existing communities. Transport assessments submitted in support of development proposals can underestimate the cumulative impact of multiple developments on local roads, particularly in rural locations where infrastructure capacity is limited. A narrow focus on junction modelling or proposed mitigation measures does not always reflect congestion, safety concerns, rat-running and impacts on existing residents. A genuinely vision-led approach should first consider whether the location is sustainable and whether existing transport infrastructure can accommodate growth, rather than assuming impacts can always be mitigated after approval.

Comment

Representation ID: 1039

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

The approach to pollution and contaminated land must place public protection at its centre. Past experience demonstrates the risks of relying too heavily on site-specific assessments and developer-led mitigation where contamination or pollution risks exist. The Local Plan should adopt a precautionary approach, with robust investigation requirements, independent scrutiny of assessments and clear safeguards before development is permitted. Contaminated land, air quality, noise and other pollution impacts should be considered cumulatively, including their effects on existing communities. Protecting health and wellbeing should be a fundamental requirement of sustainable development, not a consideration balanced away against development pressures.

Comment

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

The Local Plan should adopt a robust and precautionary approach to climate resilience. Developments that cannot demonstrate compliance with current flood risk guidance, sustainable drainage requirements and climate adaptation standards should not be considered acceptable simply because mitigation may be proposed at a later stage. Sustainable drainage systems must be designed effectively from the outset, with sufficient capacity to manage realistic future climate risks. The Council should ensure that climate objectives are embedded as minimum requirements rather than aspirations, with development refused where it fails to demonstrate that it will avoid increasing flood risk or placing additional pressure on communitues

Comment

Representation ID: 1041

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

Climate resilience must be considered strategically and not limited to design features within individual developments. Measures such as green roofs, sustainable drainage and energy efficiency are valuable, but they cannot compensate for inappropriate development locations or inadequate existing infrastructure. The distribution of growth must take account of flood risk, water capacity, transport pressures, ecological value and the ability of communities to adapt to climate impacts. The Local Plan should ensure that developments are located in areas capable of supporting long-term resilience, rather than relying on technological solutions to overcome fundamental constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 1042

Received: 21/07/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

It is concerning that food security and the protection of productive agricultural land are not given greater recognition within the emerging approach. Agricultural soils are a finite resource which provide essential ecosystem services, support local food production and contribute to resilience in the face of climate change and global uncertainty. The Local Plan should assess the long-term implications of the loss of agricultural land alongside biodiversity, landscape and carbon considerations. Development should prioritise previously developed land and locations where growth can be sustainably accommodated, with the loss of higher quality agricultural land avoided wherever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 1251

Received: 02/08/2026

Respondent: Ms Jane Wagg

I strongly object to the submission of new sites running between Broad lane and London Road, Nantwich. These roads are rural with no or limited pavements. They are narrow, have many blind spots l, the network can not safely absorb or accommodate residential traffic. This would increase the risk to existing road users, pedestrians and any new people moving to these estates. The land is currently farmed - food security should be a priority. Concreting over these fields will create a flood risk. These fields currently support the great crested newt populations, tawny owls, badgers, bats.