Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 5036

Received: 27/08/2026

Respondent: Mrs Linda Buckett

I am responding to the consultation and information sent by the Parish Council regarding sites identified in High Legh for development.
A while ago the parish council conducted a consultation to develop a local plan for development in High Legh. Two main sites were identified, both of which are on Green Belt land. The process identified the need for two types of housing, small affordable homes for young people growing up in the village who want to stay and smaller or retirement homes for older people wishing to downsize. Most of the housing in High Legh is 4/5 bedroom detached houses and other properties on spacious plots which are being extended. The proposed plan at the time was comprehensively rejected by the residents as it did not meet our needs as 50% of the housing was the same stock as we have now and not smaller properties. The residents also did not want significant development due to lack of services and amenities so the smaller site was only chosen to restrict the number of houses built. There was significant objection to this site, however, for a number of reasons. 1. It was identified as the most biodiverse site. 2. It acts as a natural flood plain after heavy rain. 3. Access and use is required by United Utilities. 4. Under the proposal additional land was required to be taken from the golf course plus construction of an access road putting some significant mature trees under threat of removal. 5. It was seen as ‘money grabbing’ by the land owner for a piece of land that was of little use to him. Since then some of the land has been sold to residents whose properties abut this land so the plot is smaller. 6. It provides pedestrian access around this part of the village away from traffic.
Objections to further development in High Legh are as follows: 1. There would have to be improvements to road infrastructure and traffic calming particularly the A50 and West Lane. 2. Access around the village by foot or bicycle is restricted, there is a narrow footway along the A50 and no enforcement of speed restrictions. 3. Little useable open or recreational space in the village away from traffic, the smaller site would be ideal for this purpose. 4. No plans to increase services in the village, shop, larger school, bus service, community centre etc.
I would support development of the largest site opposite West Lane with the following provisions. 1. The building of homes appropriate to the needs of existing villagers. 2. Access to the site from the A50, an additional junction would act to prevent excessive speeding on this straight road. 3. Pedestrian access to the other parts of the village, I.e. pedestrian crossings on West Lane. 4. Increased local services to reflect the size of the population. 5. Increased open/recreational space, the smaller site would be ideal. 6. Improvements to the accessibility of existing parts of the village. 7. Improvements to the access to the village school.
I believe despite comprehensive rejection by the villagers the Parish Council submitted the plan to Cheshire East.
Although I understand and accept the need for more houses to be built I would hope that the council are considering using all brownfield and grey belt sites first before development of green belt and that the homes built and the supporting infrastructure suit the needs of the population and not the profit margins of the developers.