Local plan scoping consultation

Dear Strategic Planning Team,
Cheshire East New Local Plan – Scoping Consultation
Objection to potential housing site south of Newcastle Road, west of Dig Lane and extending towards Stock Lane, Blakelow/Shavington
Call-for-sites reference: Land to the side/rear of 272 Newcastle Road, Shavington, Nantwich & Land North of Stock Lane

We write as residents directly affected by the parcel of land identified on Cheshire East Council’s site-submissions map for potential residential development.
The site we are referring to comprises the open fields:
• to the south of Newcastle Road;
• to the west of Dig Lane;
• extending southwards towards Stock Lane; and
• behind properties in the vicinity of CW5 7ET.
A map identifying the relevant parcel is attached.
We recognise that the present consultation is a scoping consultation and that inclusion on the site-submissions map does not amount to a formal allocation. Nevertheless, we ask the Council to treat this representation as an early and clear objection to the land being taken forward as a housing option or allocation in the new Local Plan.
The Council should reject the site during its land-availability, sustainability-appraisal and site-selection work for the following reasons, presented broadly in order of significance.
1. The site would represent an unjustified expansion into open countryside
The parcel is open, undeveloped agricultural countryside beyond the established built form of the surrounding settlements. Residential development would not amount to infilling or the consolidation of an existing urban area. It would create a substantial new projection of built development into the countryside.
The current development plan deliberately restricts ordinary housing development outside defined settlement boundaries through Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG 6. Although a new Local Plan can reconsider settlement boundaries, the existence of a promoted site is not itself justification for altering those boundaries.
Any expansion should arise from a properly evidenced spatial strategy which first considers:
• previously developed and underused land;
• sites within or well related to existing settlement boundaries;
• opportunities to increase appropriate densities;
• sites with established access to services and public transport; and
• alternatives that would cause less environmental and infrastructure harm.
National policy requires plans to promote a sustainable pattern of development, align growth with infrastructure, improve the environment and make effective use of land in urban areas. Selection of this greenfield parcel merely because it has been promoted would not satisfy those requirements.
The Council should therefore require clear evidence that development needs cannot be met in more sustainable and less harmful locations before considering any alteration of the countryside boundary in this location.
2. Loss of the rural separation, setting and identity of Blakelow, Shavington and the surrounding countryside
The site is not simply an undeveloped gap awaiting development. Its openness contributes positively to the rural setting and separate identity of Blakelow, Shavington and nearby countryside communities.
Development extending southwards from Newcastle Road would:
• erode the remaining rural character of this part of Newcastle Road;
• urbanise views presently experienced from adjoining properties, lanes and the wider countryside;
• weaken the distinction between existing ribbon development and the open countryside behind it;
• encourage further outward expansion towards Stock Lane;
• create pressure for adjoining fields to be released during future plan reviews; and
• establish a less defensible and more irregular settlement edge.
Cheshire East’s existing landscape policy requires development to conserve landscape character, quality and the features that contribute to local distinctiveness. National policy similarly requires recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Once a substantial housing allocation is placed within these fields, landscaping around its perimeter would not preserve their openness. A landscaped housing estate remains built development and would permanently alter the character and function of the land.
If any part of the parcel falls within a Strategic Green Gap, local green gap or green-wedge designation, its allocation would be still more difficult to justify. Cheshire East’s Strategic Green Gap policy identifies prevention of coalescence, protection of settlement setting and identity, and maintenance of openness as its central purposes.
We ask the Council to undertake and publish a parcel-specific landscape and settlement-separation assessment before deciding whether this land should progress any further.
3. Absence of a defensible long-term settlement boundary
A sound allocation should create a coherent and durable settlement form. This site appears to rely largely on field boundaries rather than strong physical features capable of forming a permanent settlement edge.
Development extending from Newcastle Road towards Stock Lane would expose further countryside along its southern and western boundaries to future development pressure. It would be difficult to argue, following allocation of the first parcel, why adjacent fields should remain permanently undeveloped.
The Council should avoid a pattern of incremental and promoter-led expansion in which each release makes the next release more likely. Site selection should be based on a long-term spatial strategy extending into the 2040s, rather than on the accidental pattern of individual landownerships and call-for-sites submissions.
The site should not be allocated unless the Council can demonstrate that it would produce a logical, contained and enduring settlement boundary and would not initiate further countryside encroachment.
4. Cumulative scale of housing growth around Shavington
The Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan recorded permission for approximately 1,288 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2020, described as an increase of approximately 75.8% against the 2011 housing figure. This included substantial schemes at Shavington Park, Crewe Road, Rope Lane, Basford and elsewhere.
The issue is therefore not opposition to all housing growth. The area has already accommodated an exceptionally substantial level of development.
Before directing further strategic growth to this locality, the Council must objectively assess:
• the cumulative effect of developments already completed, committed or under construction;
• whether promised infrastructure has been delivered;
• school and medical-service capacity;
• traffic conditions on Newcastle Road and surrounding lanes;
• public transport accessibility;
• drainage and sewer capacity;
• recreational and community provision; and
• the cumulative loss of countryside and local identity.
The 2026 work associated with the review of the Shavington Neighbourhood Plan has itself identified concerns that piecemeal development may not produce sufficient funding for meaningful infrastructure and that improved walking, cycling and public-transport links are needed to reach everyday services.
Further housing should not be allocated on the assumption that infrastructure problems can be resolved later through planning conditions or developer contributions.
5. Highway capacity, road safety and unsuitable access arrangements
A major housing allocation in this location would generate substantial additional vehicle movements.
The suitability of Newcastle Road, Dig Lane, Stock Lane and the surrounding junction network must be considered cumulatively rather than assessing the site in isolation. Particular matters requiring evidence include:
• the location and safety of any proposed access;
• visibility and traffic speeds on Newcastle Road;
• the effect on existing accesses and residential properties;
• additional turning movements;
• capacity at nearby junctions;
• school-time congestion;
• pedestrian safety;
• the suitability of Dig Lane or Stock Lane for any vehicular connection;
• emergency access;
• construction traffic; and
• the combined effect of committed development elsewhere around Shavington.
Dig Lane and the rural lanes surrounding the site should not be transformed into distributor routes for a major residential estate. Nor should an allocation be made on the basis of an assumed access which has not been shown to be deliverable in landownership, engineering and highway-safety terms.
Cheshire East Policy CO 1 seeks a safe and integrated transport system and a shift away from car travel. National policy requires significant development to be focused on locations that can be made sustainable through walking, cycling and public transport.
The Council should reject the site unless its assessment demonstrates, with proportionate transport evidence, that safe access can be achieved, that cumulative effects would be acceptable and that future residents would have realistic alternatives to private-car travel.
6. Poor accessibility and likely dependence on private cars
The presence of development along Newcastle Road does not automatically make the fields behind it a sustainable location for a large housing allocation.
The Council should assess actual walking routes rather than straight-line distances. Relevant questions include:
• whether continuous and suitably wide footways exist;
• whether roads can be crossed safely;
• whether schools, shops, medical facilities and public transport can be reached conveniently;
• whether routes are suitable for children, older people and disabled users;
• whether cycling connections are safe and direct; and
• whether bus services are sufficiently frequent and reliable for daily journeys.
A site whose residents would ordinarily drive to employment, schools, shops and healthcare would conflict with the climate and sustainable-transport objectives that should guide the new Local Plan.
Infrastructure improvements should be demonstrated to be feasible, funded and deliverable before allocation, not left as aspirations to be addressed after the principle of development has been established.
7. Surface-water drainage, groundwater and sewer-capacity concerns
The Council should undertake a detailed assessment of surface-water flow paths, ordinary watercourses, field drainage, groundwater conditions and the capacity of the foul and surface-water networks.
The previous Shavington Park development on the opposite side of Dig Lane required specific drainage measures for land behind Dig Lane and a wildlife corridor incorporating ponds and landscaping. That history demonstrates that drainage and ecological connectivity are material local issues rather than theoretical concerns.
Development of agricultural fields generally increases impermeable area and changes the speed, volume and direction of runoff. Residents adjoining the site should not be exposed to increased flood risk through raised levels, engineered drainage features, blocked field drainage or exceedance flows.
National planning policy requires the sequential approach to flood risk and directs development away from areas at the highest risk. Surface-water risk must be considered alongside fluvial flood zones.
The Council should require, before considering allocation:
• an up-to-date site-specific flood-risk assessment;
• hydraulic and surface-water modelling;
• identification of existing flow routes and receptors;
• evidence of a lawful and deliverable discharge point;
• confirmation of foul-sewer capacity;
• allowance for climate change;
• an assessment of cumulative effects with existing developments; and
• sufficient land for sustainable drainage without using existing residents’ properties as residual exceedance routes.
A site should not be allocated where drainage feasibility remains unresolved.
8. Landscape and visual harm
The site’s existing hedgerows, mature trees, field pattern and openness contribute collectively to its rural character.
The Council should commission or require a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that examines:
• views from Newcastle Road, Dig Lane, Stock Lane and public routes;
• views from neighbouring homes and the wider countryside;
• changes to the approach to Shavington and Blakelow;
• effects in winter when vegetation provides less screening;
• lighting and night-time urbanisation;
• proposed ground-level changes;
• the scale and density required to achieve the submitted housing capacity; and
• cumulative effects with existing housing developments.
Existing boundary vegetation should not be treated as a visual screen that makes development harmless. Hedgerows and trees are finite landscape features, can be lost through disease or management, and cannot conceal rooflines, lighting, traffic and the overall transformation from countryside to suburb.
The current Cheshire East policies require development to conserve landscape character and local distinctiveness. On the information presently available, a substantial housing allocation would conflict with those objectives.
9. Agricultural land and soil resources
The parcel appears to remain in agricultural use. Before considering its allocation, the Council should establish its Agricultural Land Classification through an appropriate survey rather than relying solely on broad provisional mapping.
National policy recognises the economic and wider environmental benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land where practicable.
The Council should therefore establish:
• whether the site includes Grade 1, Grade 2 or Grade 3a land;
• the agricultural function of the wider holding;
• whether development would fragment remaining farmland;
• whether less valuable or previously developed alternatives are available; and
• how soils would be protected and reused.
The permanent loss of productive farmland should be included transparently in the sustainability appraisal and comparison of reasonable alternatives.
10. Biodiversity, hedgerows, trees and ecological connectivity
Open farmland is not necessarily of low ecological value. The site may contain or support:
• priority hedgerows;
• mature and veteran trees;
• ponds and field ditches;
• bats;
• breeding and wintering birds;
• badgers;
• amphibians;
• invertebrates; and
• movement corridors between habitats.
Allocation should not precede adequate ecological survey work. Desktop mapping alone cannot establish the value of hedgerows, trees, ponds and species using the site.
The Council must also consider whether the required statutory biodiversity net gain can be delivered in addition to, rather than instead of, avoiding harm. Habitat creation around the edges of a housing estate does not automatically compensate for loss of an established countryside network.
The site should not be selected where ecological mitigation would materially reduce its developable area or where the submitted capacity assumes development of land required for drainage, habitat retention, buffers or biodiversity net gain.
11. Residential amenity and relationship with existing homes
The site adjoins the rear of established residential properties whose present relationship is with open countryside.
Although private views are not protected as such, the planning consequences of introducing a large estate remain material. These include:
• overlooking and loss of privacy;
• overbearing development;
• noise and disturbance;
• headlights and street lighting;
• changes in ground levels;
• drainage effects;
• loss of trees and hedgerows;
• construction traffic, dust and vibration; and
• the position of roads, drainage basins and public open space behind existing gardens.
The amount of land needed for appropriate buffers, landscape structure, drainage and ecological protection must be deducted when estimating the realistic capacity of the site. A nominally large parcel may have a much smaller developable area once these requirements are properly applied.
12. Heritage and archaeology
The Council should identify all designated and non-designated heritage assets whose settings could be affected, including historic farmsteads, traditional buildings, lanes, field boundaries and archaeological remains.
National policy requires plan-making authorities to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution made by their settings. Archaeological potential should be investigated before allocation where there is a reasonable possibility that remains are present.
The sustainability appraisal should therefore include a proportionate historic-environment assessment rather than deferring the matter until a future planning application.
13. Availability, achievability and deliverability must be demonstrated
A call-for-sites submission demonstrates only that an interested party has promoted land. It does not prove that the entire parcel is available, suitable or achievable.
Before taking the site forward, the Council should verify:
• ownership and control of the complete site;
• the ability to deliver every necessary access;
• restrictive covenants and easements;
• utility infrastructure;
• sewer and drainage constraints;
• abnormal ground or remediation costs;
• ecological and landscape mitigation;
• education and healthcare contributions;
• the availability of land for active travel improvements; and
• a realistic delivery programme.
If safe access, drainage or infrastructure depends upon third-party land or uncommitted public investment, the site should not be treated as deliverable.
Relevant local planning history
The Council should take account of the following local context.
The substantial Shavington Park development south of Newcastle Road was considered under application 12/3114N. The permission included requirements relating to a Newcastle Road footway, drainage behind Dig Lane, a wildlife corridor, ponds, planting and the relationship with existing bungalows. These requirements illustrate the sensitivity of development in this locality and the importance of drainage, ecology, highways and neighbouring amenity.
The Council has also previously found that residential development at 414 Newcastle Road, application 20/3436N, would harm the open countryside and conflict with Policies PG 6 and SC 6. While every site must be considered on its own facts, the decision confirms the continuing planning importance of countryside character along this corridor.
The Rope Lane appeal, reference APP/R0660/A/14/2227068, is also instructive. The Inspector recognised that housing within a gap would physically erode it and harm the visual character of the landscape. Although that appeal was determined under an earlier policy and on different site-specific evidence, the decision demonstrates that physical separation, landscape character, topography, vegetation and the perception of leaving one settlement before entering another are all relevant considerations.
These decisions should not be used mechanically as precedents. They do, however, demonstrate the need for a careful site-specific and cumulative assessment rather than assuming that proximity to existing housing makes development acceptable.
Requirements of a justified site-selection process
If the site is considered further, the Council should publish sufficient information to allow meaningful public scrutiny, including:
1. the exact site boundary and reference;
2. the submitted use and indicative capacity;
3. landownership and availability information;
4. the land-availability assessment;
5. the sustainability-appraisal findings;
6. comparison with reasonable alternative sites;
7. landscape and settlement-separation evidence;
8. agricultural-land classification;
9. ecological and biodiversity evidence;
10. flood-risk and drainage evidence;
11. highways and accessibility evidence;
12. infrastructure-capacity information;
13. heritage and archaeological assessment; and
14. the reasons for selecting or rejecting the site.
A future allocation must be positively prepared, justified by proportionate evidence, effective and consistent with national policy. It cannot be justified simply because the land has been submitted by its owner or promoter.
Requested action
We respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. excludes this parcel from the emerging housing-site options and from any proposed allocation;
2. retains the land as open countryside outside the settlement boundary;
3. assesses the cumulative effect of development already permitted around Shavington before identifying further growth;
4. prioritises previously developed, underused and better-connected sites;
5. records this representation against the site’s individual assessment;
6. publishes the Council’s assessment and reasons if the site is taken forward; and
7. directly notifies adjoining residents and relevant parish councils of every future consultation or evidence document concerning the site.
If the Council considers that the parcel identified in this representation differs from the mapped call-for-sites submission, please confirm the correct site reference and ensure that this objection is recorded against the parcel shown on the attached map.
This representation is not an objection to meeting genuinely evidenced housing needs. It is an objection to using this particular greenfield parcel when its development would represent poorly contained countryside expansion, compound substantial recent growth, create significant infrastructure and transport concerns and cause permanent harm to the rural setting and character of the locality.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that this representation will form part of the evidence considered during preparation of the new Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
Reuben Davies

Dear Strategic Planning Team,
Cheshire East New Local Plan – Scoping Consultation
Objection to potential housing site south of Newcastle Road, west of Dig Lane and extending towards Stock Lane, Blakelow/Shavington
Call-for-sites reference: Land to the side/rear of 272 Newcastle Road, Shavington, Nantwich & Land North of Stock Lane

We write as residents directly affected by the parcel of land identified on Cheshire East Council’s site-submissions map for potential residential development.
The site we are referring to comprises the open fields:
• to the south of Newcastle Road;
• to the west of Dig Lane;
• extending southwards towards Stock Lane; and
• behind properties in the vicinity of CW5 7ET.
A map identifying the relevant parcel is attached.
We recognise that the present consultation is a scoping consultation and that inclusion on the site-submissions map does not amount to a formal allocation. Nevertheless, we ask the Council to treat this representation as an early and clear objection to the land being taken forward as a housing option or allocation in the new Local Plan.
The Council should reject the site during its land-availability, sustainability-appraisal and site-selection work for the following reasons, presented broadly in order of significance.
1. The site would represent an unjustified expansion into open countryside
The parcel is open, undeveloped agricultural countryside beyond the established built form of the surrounding settlements. Residential development would not amount to infilling or the consolidation of an existing urban area. It would create a substantial new projection of built development into the countryside.
The current development plan deliberately restricts ordinary housing development outside defined settlement boundaries through Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG 6. Although a new Local Plan can reconsider settlement boundaries, the existence of a promoted site is not itself justification for altering those boundaries.
Any expansion should arise from a properly evidenced spatial strategy which first considers:
• previously developed and underused land;
• sites within or well related to existing settlement boundaries;
• opportunities to increase appropriate densities;
• sites with established access to services and public transport; and
• alternatives that would cause less environmental and infrastructure harm.
National policy requires plans to promote a sustainable pattern of development, align growth with infrastructure, improve the environment and make effective use of land in urban areas. Selection of this greenfield parcel merely because it has been promoted would not satisfy those requirements.
The Council should therefore require clear evidence that development needs cannot be met in more sustainable and less harmful locations before considering any alteration of the countryside boundary in this location.
2. Loss of the rural separation, setting and identity of Blakelow, Shavington and the surrounding countryside
The site is not simply an undeveloped gap awaiting development. Its openness contributes positively to the rural setting and separate identity of Blakelow, Shavington and nearby countryside communities.
Development extending southwards from Newcastle Road would:
• erode the remaining rural character of this part of Newcastle Road;
• urbanise views presently experienced from adjoining properties, lanes and the wider countryside;
• weaken the distinction between existing ribbon development and the open countryside behind it;
• encourage further outward expansion towards Stock Lane;
• create pressure for adjoining fields to be released during future plan reviews; and
• establish a less defensible and more irregular settlement edge.
Cheshire East’s existing landscape policy requires development to conserve landscape character, quality and the features that contribute to local distinctiveness. National policy similarly requires recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Once a substantial housing allocation is placed within these fields, landscaping around its perimeter would not preserve their openness. A landscaped housing estate remains built development and would permanently alter the character and function of the land.
If any part of the parcel falls within a Strategic Green Gap, local green gap or green-wedge designation, its allocation would be still more difficult to justify. Cheshire East’s Strategic Green Gap policy identifies prevention of coalescence, protection of settlement setting and identity, and maintenance of openness as its central purposes.
We ask the Council to undertake and publish a parcel-specific landscape and settlement-separation assessment before deciding whether this land should progress any further.
3. Absence of a defensible long-term settlement boundary
A sound allocation should create a coherent and durable settlement form. This site appears to rely largely on field boundaries rather than strong physical features capable of forming a permanent settlement edge.
Development extending from Newcastle Road towards Stock Lane would expose further countryside along its southern and western boundaries to future development pressure. It would be difficult to argue, following allocation of the first parcel, why adjacent fields should remain permanently undeveloped.
The Council should avoid a pattern of incremental and promoter-led expansion in which each release makes the next release more likely. Site selection should be based on a long-term spatial strategy extending into the 2040s, rather than on the accidental pattern of individual landownerships and call-for-sites submissions.
The site should not be allocated unless the Council can demonstrate that it would produce a logical, contained and enduring settlement boundary and would not initiate further countryside encroachment.
4. Cumulative scale of housing growth around Shavington
The Shavington-cum-Gresty Neighbourhood Plan recorded permission for approximately 1,288 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2020, described as an increase of approximately 75.8% against the 2011 housing figure. This included substantial schemes at Shavington Park, Crewe Road, Rope Lane, Basford and elsewhere.
The issue is therefore not opposition to all housing growth. The area has already accommodated an exceptionally substantial level of development.
Before directing further strategic growth to this locality, the Council must objectively assess:
• the cumulative effect of developments already completed, committed or under construction;
• whether promised infrastructure has been delivered;
• school and medical-service capacity;
• traffic conditions on Newcastle Road and surrounding lanes;
• public transport accessibility;
• drainage and sewer capacity;
• recreational and community provision; and
• the cumulative loss of countryside and local identity.
The 2026 work associated with the review of the Shavington Neighbourhood Plan has itself identified concerns that piecemeal development may not produce sufficient funding for meaningful infrastructure and that improved walking, cycling and public-transport links are needed to reach everyday services.
Further housing should not be allocated on the assumption that infrastructure problems can be resolved later through planning conditions or developer contributions.
5. Highway capacity, road safety and unsuitable access arrangements
A major housing allocation in this location would generate substantial additional vehicle movements.
The suitability of Newcastle Road, Dig Lane, Stock Lane and the surrounding junction network must be considered cumulatively rather than assessing the site in isolation. Particular matters requiring evidence include:
• the location and safety of any proposed access;
• visibility and traffic speeds on Newcastle Road;
• the effect on existing accesses and residential properties;
• additional turning movements;
• capacity at nearby junctions;
• school-time congestion;
• pedestrian safety;
• the suitability of Dig Lane or Stock Lane for any vehicular connection;
• emergency access;
• construction traffic; and
• the combined effect of committed development elsewhere around Shavington.
Dig Lane and the rural lanes surrounding the site should not be transformed into distributor routes for a major residential estate. Nor should an allocation be made on the basis of an assumed access which has not been shown to be deliverable in landownership, engineering and highway-safety terms.
Cheshire East Policy CO 1 seeks a safe and integrated transport system and a shift away from car travel. National policy requires significant development to be focused on locations that can be made sustainable through walking, cycling and public transport.
The Council should reject the site unless its assessment demonstrates, with proportionate transport evidence, that safe access can be achieved, that cumulative effects would be acceptable and that future residents would have realistic alternatives to private-car travel.
6. Poor accessibility and likely dependence on private cars
The presence of development along Newcastle Road does not automatically make the fields behind it a sustainable location for a large housing allocation.
The Council should assess actual walking routes rather than straight-line distances. Relevant questions include:
• whether continuous and suitably wide footways exist;
• whether roads can be crossed safely;
• whether schools, shops, medical facilities and public transport can be reached conveniently;
• whether routes are suitable for children, older people and disabled users;
• whether cycling connections are safe and direct; and
• whether bus services are sufficiently frequent and reliable for daily journeys.
A site whose residents would ordinarily drive to employment, schools, shops and healthcare would conflict with the climate and sustainable-transport objectives that should guide the new Local Plan.
Infrastructure improvements should be demonstrated to be feasible, funded and deliverable before allocation, not left as aspirations to be addressed after the principle of development has been established.
7. Surface-water drainage, groundwater and sewer-capacity concerns
The Council should undertake a detailed assessment of surface-water flow paths, ordinary watercourses, field drainage, groundwater conditions and the capacity of the foul and surface-water networks.
The previous Shavington Park development on the opposite side of Dig Lane required specific drainage measures for land behind Dig Lane and a wildlife corridor incorporating ponds and landscaping. That history demonstrates that drainage and ecological connectivity are material local issues rather than theoretical concerns.
Development of agricultural fields generally increases impermeable area and changes the speed, volume and direction of runoff. Residents adjoining the site should not be exposed to increased flood risk through raised levels, engineered drainage features, blocked field drainage or exceedance flows.
National planning policy requires the sequential approach to flood risk and directs development away from areas at the highest risk. Surface-water risk must be considered alongside fluvial flood zones.
The Council should require, before considering allocation:
• an up-to-date site-specific flood-risk assessment;
• hydraulic and surface-water modelling;
• identification of existing flow routes and receptors;
• evidence of a lawful and deliverable discharge point;
• confirmation of foul-sewer capacity;
• allowance for climate change;
• an assessment of cumulative effects with existing developments; and
• sufficient land for sustainable drainage without using existing residents’ properties as residual exceedance routes.
A site should not be allocated where drainage feasibility remains unresolved.
8. Landscape and visual harm
The site’s existing hedgerows, mature trees, field pattern and openness contribute collectively to its rural character.
The Council should commission or require a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that examines:
• views from Newcastle Road, Dig Lane, Stock Lane and public routes;
• views from neighbouring homes and the wider countryside;
• changes to the approach to Shavington and Blakelow;
• effects in winter when vegetation provides less screening;
• lighting and night-time urbanisation;
• proposed ground-level changes;
• the scale and density required to achieve the submitted housing capacity; and
• cumulative effects with existing housing developments.
Existing boundary vegetation should not be treated as a visual screen that makes development harmless. Hedgerows and trees are finite landscape features, can be lost through disease or management, and cannot conceal rooflines, lighting, traffic and the overall transformation from countryside to suburb.
The current Cheshire East policies require development to conserve landscape character and local distinctiveness. On the information presently available, a substantial housing allocation would conflict with those objectives.
9. Agricultural land and soil resources
The parcel appears to remain in agricultural use. Before considering its allocation, the Council should establish its Agricultural Land Classification through an appropriate survey rather than relying solely on broad provisional mapping.
National policy recognises the economic and wider environmental benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land where practicable.
The Council should therefore establish:
• whether the site includes Grade 1, Grade 2 or Grade 3a land;
• the agricultural function of the wider holding;
• whether development would fragment remaining farmland;
• whether less valuable or previously developed alternatives are available; and
• how soils would be protected and reused.
The permanent loss of productive farmland should be included transparently in the sustainability appraisal and comparison of reasonable alternatives.
10. Biodiversity, hedgerows, trees and ecological connectivity
Open farmland is not necessarily of low ecological value. The site may contain or support:
• priority hedgerows;
• mature and veteran trees;
• ponds and field ditches;
• bats;
• breeding and wintering birds;
• badgers;
• amphibians;
• invertebrates; and
• movement corridors between habitats.
Allocation should not precede adequate ecological survey work. Desktop mapping alone cannot establish the value of hedgerows, trees, ponds and species using the site.
The Council must also consider whether the required statutory biodiversity net gain can be delivered in addition to, rather than instead of, avoiding harm. Habitat creation around the edges of a housing estate does not automatically compensate for loss of an established countryside network.
The site should not be selected where ecological mitigation would materially reduce its developable area or where the submitted capacity assumes development of land required for drainage, habitat retention, buffers or biodiversity net gain.
11. Residential amenity and relationship with existing homes
The site adjoins the rear of established residential properties whose present relationship is with open countryside.
Although private views are not protected as such, the planning consequences of introducing a large estate remain material. These include:
• overlooking and loss of privacy;
• overbearing development;
• noise and disturbance;
• headlights and street lighting;
• changes in ground levels;
• drainage effects;
• loss of trees and hedgerows;
• construction traffic, dust and vibration; and
• the position of roads, drainage basins and public open space behind existing gardens.
The amount of land needed for appropriate buffers, landscape structure, drainage and ecological protection must be deducted when estimating the realistic capacity of the site. A nominally large parcel may have a much smaller developable area once these requirements are properly applied.
12. Heritage and archaeology
The Council should identify all designated and non-designated heritage assets whose settings could be affected, including historic farmsteads, traditional buildings, lanes, field boundaries and archaeological remains.
National policy requires plan-making authorities to identify and assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution made by their settings. Archaeological potential should be investigated before allocation where there is a reasonable possibility that remains are present.
The sustainability appraisal should therefore include a proportionate historic-environment assessment rather than deferring the matter until a future planning application.
13. Availability, achievability and deliverability must be demonstrated
A call-for-sites submission demonstrates only that an interested party has promoted land. It does not prove that the entire parcel is available, suitable or achievable.
Before taking the site forward, the Council should verify:
• ownership and control of the complete site;
• the ability to deliver every necessary access;
• restrictive covenants and easements;
• utility infrastructure;
• sewer and drainage constraints;
• abnormal ground or remediation costs;
• ecological and landscape mitigation;
• education and healthcare contributions;
• the availability of land for active travel improvements; and
• a realistic delivery programme.
If safe access, drainage or infrastructure depends upon third-party land or uncommitted public investment, the site should not be treated as deliverable.
Relevant local planning history
The Council should take account of the following local context.
The substantial Shavington Park development south of Newcastle Road was considered under application 12/3114N. The permission included requirements relating to a Newcastle Road footway, drainage behind Dig Lane, a wildlife corridor, ponds, planting and the relationship with existing bungalows. These requirements illustrate the sensitivity of development in this locality and the importance of drainage, ecology, highways and neighbouring amenity.
The Council has also previously found that residential development at 414 Newcastle Road, application 20/3436N, would harm the open countryside and conflict with Policies PG 6 and SC 6. While every site must be considered on its own facts, the decision confirms the continuing planning importance of countryside character along this corridor.
The Rope Lane appeal, reference APP/R0660/A/14/2227068, is also instructive. The Inspector recognised that housing within a gap would physically erode it and harm the visual character of the landscape. Although that appeal was determined under an earlier policy and on different site-specific evidence, the decision demonstrates that physical separation, landscape character, topography, vegetation and the perception of leaving one settlement before entering another are all relevant considerations.
These decisions should not be used mechanically as precedents. They do, however, demonstrate the need for a careful site-specific and cumulative assessment rather than assuming that proximity to existing housing makes development acceptable.
Requirements of a justified site-selection process
If the site is considered further, the Council should publish sufficient information to allow meaningful public scrutiny, including:
1. the exact site boundary and reference;
2. the submitted use and indicative capacity;
3. landownership and availability information;
4. the land-availability assessment;
5. the sustainability-appraisal findings;
6. comparison with reasonable alternative sites;
7. landscape and settlement-separation evidence;
8. agricultural-land classification;
9. ecological and biodiversity evidence;
10. flood-risk and drainage evidence;
11. highways and accessibility evidence;
12. infrastructure-capacity information;
13. heritage and archaeological assessment; and
14. the reasons for selecting or rejecting the site.
A future allocation must be positively prepared, justified by proportionate evidence, effective and consistent with national policy. It cannot be justified simply because the land has been submitted by its owner or promoter.
Requested action
We respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. excludes this parcel from the emerging housing-site options and from any proposed allocation;
2. retains the land as open countryside outside the settlement boundary;
3. assesses the cumulative effect of development already permitted around Shavington before identifying further growth;
4. prioritises previously developed, underused and better-connected sites;
5. records this representation against the site’s individual assessment;
6. publishes the Council’s assessment and reasons if the site is taken forward; and
7. directly notifies adjoining residents and relevant parish councils of every future consultation or evidence document concerning the site.
If the Council considers that the parcel identified in this representation differs from the mapped call-for-sites submission, please confirm the correct site reference and ensure that this objection is recorded against the parcel shown on the attached map.
This representation is not an objection to meeting genuinely evidenced housing needs. It is an objection to using this particular greenfield parcel when its development would represent poorly contained countryside expansion, compound substantial recent growth, create significant infrastructure and transport concerns and cause permanent harm to the rural setting and character of the locality.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that this representation will form part of the evidence considered during preparation of the new Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
Reuben Davies