Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3558

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

This preamble presupposes that the Council accept the need for more homes in Cheshire without question. A more meaningful consultation would be on the implications of the Council’s overall vision and plan for Cheshire and how this might/would influence housing and other needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 3561

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

Our elected representatives and the Council as a whole need to set out its vision and strategy for Cheshire - in this context stating clearly whether the Government’s targets for house building fit with . Once this is done, there can be a meaningful consultation on the plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 3564

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

This web tool is complex and appears designed to deter individual members of the public from participating in the process.

Comment

Representation ID: 3586

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

They’re needs to be some weighting and prioritisation. There also needs to be some mechanism to properly deal with long-term, potentially irreversible impact, as well as the short-term pressures/issues listed.
The list is skewed towards driving development rather than the bigger picture. The list therefore should also include: effective use of brownfield sites; rebuilding Cheshire’s poor biodiversity and reforesting (ie not just a few trees here and there in a development); protecting farm outputs; the role of Cheshire’s agriculture in the UK’s food security; valuing the contribution of the rural economy; the impact of urban sprawl/expansion on health and well-being

Comment

Representation ID: 3587

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

Cheshire environment has been severely degraded over the past few decades. Protection of the present, unacceptable, situation is not acceptable. The plan should have clear objectives to reverse the damage that development has alreday done.

Comment

Representation ID: 3588

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

This process should have started some time ago and now appears rushed, with this particular consultation conducted over the summer timed when many of those who might wish to comment are unavailable or have limited time to contribute. This appears to limit or stifle citizens’ participation in and contribution to discussions on a very important issue.

Comment

Representation ID: 3590

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

It is disappointing that those elected members who are supposed to represent the local community appear to have accepted the national policy as applied to Cheshire without thought. There are a number of factors in both the basis of national policy and its expression that, if applied in Cheshire as stated, will be detrimental to the interests and future of Cheshire residents.
In particular, Cheshire appears to be penalised for the shortcomings of neighbouring authorities in house building in recent years.

Comment

Representation ID: 3591

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

Paragraph 3.6 should also include a potential lower target for house building when locals needs do not support a higher figure. It is unacceptable that neighbouring authorities historic shortcomings in house building become a ‘problem’ for Cheshire and result in significant long-term and potentially irreversible damage such as: social cohesion; physical and psychological health and well-being: biodiversity (in an already bio-deleted area); and reduced agricultural land leading to reduced food security in the UK.

Comment

Representation ID: 3592

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The Council should not be accepting this national policy as it is detrimental to the interests of Cheshire and its residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 3593

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The Council should work tirelessly to use brownfield sites in the area. It is recognised that this type of development creates less short-term profit for the developer but it does significantly less damage to the medium to long-term interests of Cheshire and its residents.