Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1607

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

The vision and measurable outcomes should give climate and nature equal status with housing and economic delivery. At least one outcome should measure nature recovery and ecological connectivity, and others should measure carbon reduction, sustainable transport, access to green space and climate resilience. Each outcome should have a published baseline, target and monitoring method. Environmental objectives risk becoming secondary if they remain qualitative while housing and employment delivery are measured numerically.

Comment

Representation ID: 1608

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.6 Environmental constraints and opportunities should shape the scale and distribution of growth from the outset, not simply mitigate impacts after development locations have been chosen. The Council should explain how biodiversity, ecological connectivity, climate, flood risk, water resources, soils, landscape and infrastructure capacity will be weighted alongside housing and economic objectives when developing the spatial strategy. Significant environmental constraints should be capable of ruling out otherwise developable locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1609

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.12 The land availability methodology should publish environmental exclusion and assessment criteria before sites progress towards allocation. It should identify irreplaceable habitats, ancient woodland and veteran trees, peat, priority habitats, ecological networks, flood risk, sensitive hydrology, high-quality agricultural land and important landscapes. The methodology should also show how Local Nature Recovery Strategy priorities will influence scoring. Environmental assessment must occur before a shortlist gains planning momentum, not after preferred locations have emerged.

Comment

Representation ID: 1611

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.18 The Green Belt assessment should not be treated as an environmental suitability assessment. Grey belt status concerns Green Belt purposes and does not establish that land is ecologically suitable for development. Any land identified as grey belt should be overlaid with biodiversity, ecological-network, Local Nature Recovery Strategy, peat, soils, hydrology, flood-risk and landscape evidence before release is considered. Environmentally important land should remain protected regardless of its contribution to Green Belt purposes.

Comment

Representation ID: 1612

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

The Strategic Green Gap should be retained unless robust evidence demonstrates that its functions are no longer required. Its review should assess more than settlement separation, including landscape character, ecological connectivity, biodiversity, flood management, agricultural land and recreational value. Opportunities to strengthen the gap as multifunctional green infrastructure should also be considered. Any proposed reduction should identify the affected land and demonstrate transparently that these environmental and settlement functions will not be materially harmed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1613

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.26 Before considering major urban extensions or new settlements, the Council should demonstrate that suitable brownfield land, vacant buildings, regeneration opportunities and sustainable urban intensification have been fully assessed. Densification must not come at the expense of important urban green space, trees or climate resilience. All spatial options should be compared using consistent measures for carbon, transport, biodiversity, water, flood risk, infrastructure and agricultural land, with the results published.

Comment

Representation ID: 1614

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

The move towards National Decision-Making Policies must not result in the quiet loss of Cheshire East's locally specific countryside protections. Existing Policy PG 6 and relevant RUR policies should be audited against the final national policies. Where local provisions are proposed for removal, the Council should identify the replacement and demonstrate equivalent or stronger protection for landscape character, settlement form, biodiversity and the open countryside. Local policy should be retained wherever Cheshire-specific circumstances justify it.

Comment

Representation ID: 1615

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

Requirements for small and medium housing sites should not override sustainable-location principles. Rural or village allocations should only proceed where residents can realistically access services, schools, employment and public transport without creating additional car dependency, and where ecological, landscape and infrastructure impacts are acceptable. The Council should also distinguish clearly between requirements in adopted national policy and proposals contained only in the draft NPPF when determining the scale and distribution of such allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1616

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.54 The new Local Plan should adopt the tighter 110 litres per person per day water-efficiency standard if the evidence permits, and should test whether an even tighter future national standard can be applied by adoption. The evidence should consider climate change, population growth, drought, abstraction impacts and water-company supply forecasts rather than relying solely on historic water-stress designation. Major non-residential development should also be required to demonstrate water efficiency and appropriate water reuse.

Comment

Representation ID: 1617

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

5.68 The Council reports a healthy remaining supply of around 375 hectares of employment land while jobs growth has already exceeded the current plan target. Additional greenfield employment allocations should therefore require clear evidence that existing allocations, brownfield sites, vacant premises and opportunities for intensification cannot meet identified needs. Employment growth should be directed towards locations that minimise land take, transport emissions, water and energy demand, and harm to biodiversity and landscape.