Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 2703

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

1.7 - This Consultation does not permit comment on the sites included in the recently published ‘Submission’ document. This seems to be a significant omission at this stage. However, noted that there will be an opportunity to comment on those sites included in the ‘long list’ at a subsequent stage in the Consultation process. [See also Sections 2.6, 5.8 & 5.10.]
It is acknowledged that ‘submitted sites’ have no planning status and that publication is ‘for transparency’. It is also noted that the ‘long list’ of sites will be subject to assessment, although the basis of evaluation is unclear.

Comment

Representation ID: 2704

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

The respondent raises concerns about how the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan will interact with recent changes to national planning policy and future housing requirements. They argue that the consultation timetable has provided insufficient opportunity to fully consider the implications of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was updated shortly before the consultation deadline. They also note that neighbourhood plans cannot be meaningfully reviewed until the Local Plan progresses further. The respondent questions how the Council will ensure the Local Plan remains responsive to future changes in housing need, Housing Delivery Test results, five-year housing land supply requirements and any subsequent amendments to national planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 2705

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.4
The following statement is noted:
“As part of this scoping consultation, we would be grateful for your views on priority matters
for inclusion in the vision, aims and objectives, and measurable outcomes for the new local
plan…..”
It is considered that these priority matters should include:
Retention of the rural character of key areas such as the “….sparsely populated and, in
some cases, relatively isolated settlements to the south west of Nantwich.” (Section 4.19)
This objective is essential in order to safeguard the identity of such areas, to protect the
natural environment and historic features and also to avoid an unwanted homogeneous
approach to development. In other words, required housing needs should be met by
development in other, more established areas of Cheshire East and not in rural backwaters.
This approach makes sense since, by definition, the more established towns have better
access to essential infrastructure, facilities and transport links. Villages, hamlets and
scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas should not be treated as
settlements unless the development plan specifically defines them as such.

Comment

Representation ID: 2707

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.4
The following statement is noted:
“As part of this scoping consultation, we would be grateful for your views on priority matters
for inclusion in the vision, aims and objectives, and measurable outcomes for the new local
plan…..”
It is considered that these priority matters should include:
Retention of the rural character of key areas such as the “….sparsely populated and, in
some cases, relatively isolated settlements to the south west of Nantwich.” (Section 4.19)
This objective is essential in order to safeguard the identity of such areas, to protect the
natural environment and historic features and also to avoid an unwanted homogeneous
approach to development. In other words, required housing needs should be met by
development in other, more established areas of Cheshire East and not in rural backwaters.
This approach makes sense since, by definition, the more established towns have better
access to essential infrastructure, facilities and transport links. Villages, hamlets and
scattered groups of houses outside predominantly built-up areas should not be treated as
settlements unless the development plan specifically defines them as such.

Comment

Representation ID: 2708

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

The following statements are noted:
“Sites submitted through the 2024 and 2026 call for sites exercises…. will be assessed to
determine their suitability, availability and deliverability.”
“The methodology will include our approach to filtering sites that are obviously unsuitable for
development…… The output of this work will be a list of sites that will be considered further
as potential draft allocations. Additional opportunities to submit sites or update existing
submissions will be available as the local plan progresses.”
The next stage in the selection of possible sites for housing development is of crucial
importance. Unsuitable sites should be ‘screened out’ right at the outset to remove them
from the ‘long list’. As such, we await the forthcoming ‘plan content and evidence’
consultation’ with keen interest.

Comment

Representation ID: 2709

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.20 / 5.21 / 5.22 / 5.23 / 5.26
The limitations of some of the ‘Local Service Centres’ (as listed) should be recognized. In
reality, some of these smaller Local Service Centres have very limited facilities (e.g.
transport infrastructure, access to rail and bus services, connectivity to road networks which
cannot cope with any significant additional housing numbers and also inadequacy in terms of
access to shops, schools and other vital facilities such as medical centres. Even a cursory
examination of many / most of the Local Service Centres as listed will highlight their
unsuitability for further development. The assembly of such evidence is an essential part of
the compilation and refinement of a workable ‘settlement hierarchy’.
The suitability or otherwise of areas / sites which fall outside the settlement areas / Local
Service Centres should be even more apparent. (See also Section 5.91 et seq.)

Comment

Representation ID: 2710

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.20 / 5.21 / 5.22 / 5.23 / 5.26
The limitations of some of the ‘Local Service Centres’ (as listed) should be recognized. In
reality, some of these smaller Local Service Centres have very limited facilities (e.g.
transport infrastructure, access to rail and bus services, connectivity to road networks which
cannot cope with any significant additional housing numbers and also inadequacy in terms of
access to shops, schools and other vital facilities such as medical centres. Even a cursory
examination of many / most of the Local Service Centres as listed will highlight their
unsuitability for further development. The assembly of such evidence is an essential part of
the compilation and refinement of a workable ‘settlement hierarchy’.
The suitability or otherwise of areas / sites which fall outside the settlement areas / Local
Service Centres should be even more apparent. (See also Section 5.91 et seq.)

Comment

Representation ID: 2712

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.29
The following statement is noted:
“National decision-making policies will…. set out the overall approach to development
outside of settlements.”
The August 2026 revision of the National Planning Policy Framework now includes a better
definition of settlements and how boundaries should be set. The ‘presumption in favour of
sustainable development’ now applies via Policies S3 – S6.
In particular, Policy S5 identifies, in principle, what sort of development is acceptable in
areas outside of settlements. The tests for development in such areas are clear and well
defined. It should be noted that the benefits must substantially outweigh the adverse effects,
including effects on countryside character. By way of example, a small hamlet or cluster of
houses outside predominantly built-up areas has no defined settlement status (unless so
defined in the development plan).

Comment

Representation ID: 2715

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.31
Once available, the ‘Housing Needs Assessment’ must be the subject of careful scrutiny as it
will have an influence on the selection of sites. Presumably this will form part of a
subsequent stage of the Local Plan Consultation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2716

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Gary Kwant

5.47 / 5.48 / 5.49
It is noted that (current) Government housing policy sets a quota for the allocation of housing
development to ‘small sites’ (<1Ha) and ‘medium sites’ (>1ha <2.5Ha). The policy states that
10% of the housing requirement should be allocated to each of these categories.
This policy is not only rather crude but it also takes no account of other factors and
constraints which are of vital importance in the selection of suitable sites for housing. It
cannot be equitable or reasonable that such a policy should ‘trump’ these other fundamental
considerations. There is a need to ‘screen out’ unsuitable sites, irrespective of the size of the
plot. To put it another way, the requirement to meet the quotas for small and medium sites
may not be compatible with other valid criteria which should really be dominant as a pointer
to the selection of sites which may be suitable for housing development. This is considered
to be a key point.