Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1543

Received: 13/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Sean Hall

I am writing as a resident of Mobberley to comment on the scope of the new Local Plan, particularly in relation to housing distribution, transport infrastructure, and the character of villages in this part of the borough.

I would like to make the following Comments.

1. Settlement coalescence risk (Mobberley Knutsford)
Mobberley is currently classified as a "local service centre," one tier below Knutsford's status as a "key service centre." I would ask the council to treat this distinction as more than administrative: the gap of open countryside between Mobberley and Knutsford is a defining feature of the village's identity, and it is narrow enough that a significant allocation on Mobberley's eastern side, or on Knutsford's western/southern fringe, risks the two effectively merging. I would like the new plan to:
• Explicitly assess coalescence risk between Mobberley and Knutsford as part of its site selection methodology, not just as a generic "openness" criterion.
• Retain or strengthen a defined settlement gap / strategic green gap policy between the two, rather than relying on general countryside protection alone

2. Infrastructure delivery is a real constraint, not a formality
Housing numbers are routinely justified with promises of "supporting infrastructure," but delivery consistently lags occupation by years, if it happens at all. I would ask the council to:
• Require infrastructure (school places, GP capacity, drainage/sewerage, road improvements) to be phased ahead of or alongside occupation, not promised as a future S106/CIL commitment with no enforceable timetable.
• Publish, as part of the evidence base, a track record of infrastructure delivery against past commitments in comparable Cheshire East developments, so the plan isn't built on assumptions that haven't held up before.

3. Road network cannot absorb significant additional traffic
Mobberley and the surrounding area are served predominantly by single-carriageway country roads (e.g. Knutsford Road, Faulkners Lane, Town Lane) that were never designed for significant additional through-traffic. Any material increase in housing in or around the village will increase congestion, rat-running through unsuitable lanes, and vehicle emissions, with no realistic prospect of the road network being upgraded to match. I would ask that:
• Transport capacity assessments for this area explicitly model rural/country-lane routes, not just the strategic road network.
• Air quality and carbon impacts of increased rural car dependency (there is no meaningful public transport alternative in Mobberley) are treated as a genuine constraint on site selection, in line with the council's stated climate change objectives for the plan.
4. Public transport is not a credible alternative to the car
The plan's stated ambition to support sustainable travel does not reflect the reality on the ground in Mobberley:
• Rail: Mobberley station is served by only one train per hour, services are frequently overcrowded, and the station itself is not realistically accessible without a car , which there is no safe walking or cycling route for most of the village, and the approach is along a narrow, unlit country lane. Parking at the station is extremely limited, so even residents willing to drive to the station and take the train often cannot find a space.
• Bus: The only bus service from the village centre also runs at just once an hour and is unreliable, making it unworkable as a genuine commuting option.
In practice, this means any new housing in Mobberley will be almost entirely car-dependent, which directly undermines the council's own climate change and sustainable transport objectives for the plan. I would ask that:
• Site selection and sustainability appraisals explicitly score Mobberley's public transport accessibility as poor, rather than crediting it with "access to rail" without qualification for frequency, reliability, or physical accessibility of the station.
• Any housing allocation in or near Mobberley be conditional on a genuine, funded uplift in service frequency and reliability (rail and bus) and improved, safe pedestrian/cycle access to the station not a vague aspiration.

5. Landscape character and heritage
Mobberley's setting, open farmland, hedgerows, and its historic core is part of what the plan itself lists as an objective to protect (countryside, green spaces and heritage).
Incremental large-scale allocations erode this cumulatively even when no single site looks decisive in isolation. I would ask the council to assess cumulative landscape impact across multiple potential sites around Mobberley, not site by site in isolation.
6. Summary position
I object to any significant expansion of housing in Mobberley beyond development that is genuinely in keeping with the existing built form of the village.
• the risk of coalescence with Knutsford,
• the poor track record of infrastructure delivery keeping pace with occupation,
• the inadequate capacity of the surrounding country road network, and
• the lack of any credible public transport alternative to the car (hourly, overcrowded, poorly accessible rail; hourly, unreliable bus),

Kind Regards
Sean Hall