Local plan scoping consultation

Dear Strategic Planning Team,
I am writing in response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I live at (REDACTED), in one of five existing dwellings forming part of (REDACTED), an historic 1850s farm conversion. My home is situated within the wider area identified by the Council as the 73.36-hectare London Road/Woodford Road site, submitted for consideration under the Land Availability Assessment for housing and other uses under references CFS26 295, HE96, HE341 and HE272.

The new Jones Homes Glastonbury Fold proposal for up to 130 homes is located within this wider 73.36-hectare area, as shown on the accompanying map.

I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing and that the Council must respond to national housing requirements. My concern is therefore not simply opposition to housing development. My concern is whether this location represents an appropriate and sustainable direction for the long-term expansion of Poynton, particularly when the potential cumulative development of the wider area is considered.

The Council's current consultation states that the new Local Plan will help determine how and where Cheshire East grows and develops, including the location of new homes, infrastructure and green spaces.

I therefore ask the Council to consider the following matters carefully before identifying this area as appropriate for future housing growth.

1. The cumulative potential of the wider 73.36-hectare area
My principal concern is that the 73.36-hectare area is potentially much more significant than the individual Jones Homes Glastonbury Fold proposal suggests.

The proposed Glastonbury Fold development of up to 130 homes is already located within this wider area.

I therefore please ask the Council to establish:

What is the realistic maximum development potential of the whole 73.36-hectare area, including the Jones Homes Glastonbury Fold proposal and any further development that could potentially take place on the remainder of the submitted land?

I also ask the Council to clarify whether the four constituent submissions (CFS26 295, HE96, HE341 and HE272) are intended to be assessed independently, or whether their combined spatial implications will be considered.

Even if the individual submissions are assessed separately for technical purposes, I believe the Council must understand their combined effect on the future shape and extent of Poynton.

The critical question is not simply whether individual parcels can accommodate housing, but what the cumulative effect on Poynton would be if this wider area were progressively developed?

2. Previous planning policy recognised the importance of this area
I believe the Council should give significant consideration to the existing planning history and policy position of land around Glastonbury Drive.

The adopted Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document identifies PYT 2 – Land north of Glastonbury Drive for sports and leisure development. Importantly, the Council's policy states that the site remains within the Green Belt. It also describes the area as "an important open gap between Poynton and adjacent areas of Greater Manchester", and states that the area is vulnerable to further erosion of its open character.

The policy also requires development at PYT 2 to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and specifically recognises the importance of views into the site and the wider countryside in the sensitive gap between Poynton and Bramhall/Hazel Grove.

The Poynton Neighbourhood Plan similarly states that the North Cheshire Green Belt surrounding Poynton should be retained in order to preserve the town's character and separate identity, and seeks to minimise the use of further Green Belt land.

I therefore ask:

What has materially changed since these policies and assessments were adopted that now makes substantial housing development in this area an appropriate direction for Poynton's future growth?

I recognise that national planning policy and housing requirements have changed. However, I believe the Council should distinguish between the need to accommodate additional housing and the question of whether this particular location is suitable for substantial expansion.

3. Risk of urban sprawl and outward expansion
My principal strategic concern is that development of the wider area could represent a significant outward expansion of Poynton into the surrounding countryside.

A series of individually assessed sites can have a very different cumulative effect from that of any single development.

I therefore ask the Council to assess whether development of the wider area would:

• extend Poynton substantially beyond its existing urban edge;
• contribute to unrestricted outward expansion;
• result in progressive encroachment into the countryside;
• erode the existing rural setting of Poynton; or
• fundamentally change the relationship between Poynton and the surrounding settlements.

I believe this needs to be considered in terms of the eventual settlement pattern, rather than simply whether individual sites can physically accommodate housing.

4. The long-term boundary and character of Poynton
The new Local Plan provides an opportunity to establish the appropriate long-term shape of Poynton.

I therefore ask the Council to consider:

If the proposed and promoted development sites around this part of Poynton were developed, where would the effective future edge of the town ultimately be?

The existing planning evidence already recognises the importance of the open gap around Poynton. The Council's PYT 2 policy specifically identifies the area as sensitive to further erosion of its open character.

I therefore ask the Council to ensure that the new Local Plan establishes a clear and defensible long-term settlement boundary, rather than allowing the boundary of Poynton to move progressively into surrounding countryside through successive developments.

5. Green Belt purposes and the "Grey Belt" issue
I recognise that national planning policy has changed and that the Council now needs to consider the implications of the Government's revised approach to Green Belt and Grey Belt land.

However, I believe it is important that the Council considers the actual strategic functions performed by this particular area, rather than treating Green Belt release simply as a means of meeting housing numbers.

The existing Poynton Neighbourhood Plan specifically identifies the North Cheshire Green Belt as important to maintaining Poynton's character and separate identity. It also states that further Green Belt use should be minimised.

I therefore ask the Council to assess whether development of the wider area would undermine the Green Belt functions of:

• checking unrestricted sprawl;
• preventing the merging or coalescence of settlements;
• safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and
• preserving the setting and character of Poynton.

I also ask that any assessment of whether land could constitute "Grey Belt" considers the cumulative consequences of development, rather than assessing individual parcels in isolation.

6. Flood risk and drainage
Flood risk also warrants particular consideration before this area is considered suitable for substantial housing growth.

The existing PYT 2 policy identifies Poynton Brook and associated wet ditches within the area and requires their protection. It also specifically states that surface water discharge to the gravity sewer crossing the site should be avoided.

I therefore ask the Council to ensure that the strategic suitability of the wider area is assessed against current flood-risk, drainage and surface-water evidence before it is considered appropriate for substantial housing development.

This should include consideration of the potential cumulative effect of development on surface-water runoff and downstream areas, rather than simply assessing drainage arrangements for individual developments.

I am not asking the Council at this stage to determine detailed drainage matters that would properly form part of a future planning application.

My concern is whether the location and potential scale of development are fundamentally compatible with the area's drainage and flood-risk characteristics.

7. Brownfield land and the "previously developed land first" principle
I also ask the Council to establish what previously developed land and other brownfield opportunities are realistically available within Poynton and the surrounding area before further Green Belt/countryside land is identified for substantial development.

The adopted Poynton Neighbourhood Plan contains a specific "Previously Developed Land (PDL) First" approach and states that development opportunities within Poynton should be considered through a sequential approach.

I therefore ask:

What is the current identified and deliverable brownfield capacity within Poynton, and how has this been taken into account when considering the need for additional Green Belt/countryside development?

I recognise that brownfield land cannot necessarily accommodate the entirety of the housing requirement.

However, before substantial Green Belt release is contemplated, I believe the Council should demonstrate that all reasonable previously developed and other sustainable opportunities have been properly identified and assessed.

8. The significance of the five existing historic farm-conversion homes
My home is not simply a property located next to a proposed development.

It forms part of (REDACTED), an historic 1850s farm conversion, comprising five existing dwellings, which are currently situated within a rural environment.

It is also a recognisable local landmark and established reference point for walkers using the network of public footpaths and historic routes through this part of Poynton. Its distinctive farmhouse and associated buildings are part of the character of Poynton and provide a clear visual and navigational feature within the surrounding open agricultural landscape. There is a longstanding relationship between the farmstead, the surrounding fields and local walking routes.

As shown on the accompanying map, these homes are located within the wider 73.36-hectare area.

My concern is that if substantial development were ultimately permitted across the surrounding land, these established homes could become an enclave of existing dwellings within a substantially urbanised area.

I appreciate that detailed residential amenity matters will need to be considered if and when a planning application is submitted.

However, I believe the strategic implications of placing substantial development around these historic homes should be recognised now, when the Council is considering the appropriate location and scale of future growth.

Conclusion
I recognise the significant housing challenge facing Cheshire East and do not suggest that Poynton should be exempt from contributing to the district's housing needs.

My concern is that meeting the housing requirement should not automatically mean that every potentially available parcel surrounding an existing settlement becomes appropriate for development.

The current Local Plan scoping consultation is an opportunity to consider the long-term spatial consequences of development before individual sites become established as appropriate development locations. The Council itself states that the new Local Plan will shape where new homes, infrastructure and green spaces are located and will guide how Cheshire East grows into the 2040s.

I therefore respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the 73.36-hectare London Road/Woodford Road area is assessed strategically and cumulatively, including the Glastonbury Fold proposal already located within it.

In particular, I ask the Council to consider:

1. the realistic total development potential of the wider area;
2. the cumulative effect on the size and shape of Poynton;
3. the risk of urban sprawl and countryside encroachment;
4. the established Green Belt function of the area;
5. the importance of the open gap between Poynton and neighbouring areas;
6. the actual transport sustainability of the location;
7. the availability of previously developed and brownfield alternatives; and
8. the effect on the five existing historic farm-conversion homes

Most importantly, I ask the Council to answer the following strategic question:

What would Poynton look like if this 73.36-hectare area, together with other currently proposed or promoted sites around the town, were developed?

I believe that question needs to be properly considered before the Council determines whether, and to what extent, this area should contribute to Poynton's future housing growth.

I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this representation and ensure that it is taken into account in preparing the new Local Plan.

Yours faithfully,
Richard Porter


Attachment 1 – Whole Map
Poynton – Cumulative Development Concern
London Road/Woodford Road 73.36-hectare site, Glastonbury Fold and existing farm-conversion dwellings

Map Key
Hatched/shaded area
73.36-hectare London Road/Woodford Road site submitted to Cheshire East for consideration under the Land Availability Assessment (CFS26 295, HE96, HE341 and HE272).

Pink shaded area
Glastonbury Fold proposal by Jones Homes, comprising up to 130 proposed homes.

Purple square
Existing group of five homes forming part of the 1850s Park House Farm conversion.

Purpose of map
To illustrate the potential cumulative relationship between the 73.36-hectare site submission, the Jones Homes Glastonbury Fold proposal and the existing five historic farm-conversion dwellings. The map is provided to assist the Council in assessing the cumulative spatial impact of development and should not be interpreted as confirmation of final development or site boundaries.