Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1628

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

The proposed evidence list is incomplete and internally inconsistent. Paragraph 5.103 says a Peat Study will support the plan and paragraph 5.124 refers to Open Space Assessments, yet neither appears in paragraph 5.145. The list also lacks an explicit biodiversity baseline, ecological-network update, landscape-character review, green-infrastructure assessment, water-resource study, soils or agricultural-land evidence and natural-capital assessment. These should be added, with publication dates showing they will be available before strategic site-selection decisions are made.

Comment

Representation ID: 1630

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.8 The relationship between the existing Statement of Community Involvement and this Engagement Strategy should be made explicit. The Council should publish a comparison showing which existing consultation commitments are retained, changed or removed. Where the 2022 SCI provides stronger accessibility, publicity or transparency commitments, these should not be weakened without clear justification. Residents should be able to understand which document governs engagement at each stage of preparing the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1631

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.22 A digital-first approach must not reduce practical access for rural, older or digitally excluded residents. Printed material should be available at libraries, appropriate town and parish locations and other accessible venues across the borough, not only principal Council offices. In-person opportunities should also be geographically distributed. The Council should publish how it will identify areas with low digital participation and what additional engagement will be provided where online consultation is not reaching a representative cross-section of residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 1632

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.44 Consultation transparency should extend beyond publishing summaries. The current Statement of Community Involvement says comments will be made publicly available. The new strategy should retain that principle, subject to lawful redaction of personal information, and publish a response schedule showing the issue raised, the Council's response and any resulting change to the Plan. This would provide a genuinely auditable record and allow residents to see whether minority or technical concerns have been accurately represented in summary reports.

Comment

Representation ID: 1633

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.47 Community assemblies can provide useful qualitative evidence, but a group of around 25 residents should not be treated as statistically representative of Cheshire East. The Council should publish the recruitment and selection method, demographic and geographic criteria, whether participants will rotate between assemblies, facilitation arrangements and how conclusions will be recorded. Assembly findings should complement wider consultation responses rather than being given greater weight simply because the group was designed to be broadly representative.

Comment

Representation ID: 1634

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.51 The Council's proactive engagement with site promoters should be matched by transparent early engagement with affected communities and relevant environmental organisations. Candidate site submissions, supporting evidence, assessment criteria and Council assessments should be published as early as practicable. A record of substantive promoter engagement should also be maintained. Communities should have a meaningful opportunity to identify local ecological, infrastructure, access and landscape issues before sites become preferred options, rather than only after development choices have gained momentum.

Comment

Representation ID: 1635

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.57 If AI is used to analyse consultation responses, the Council should publish the tool used, its purpose, the information processed, the validation method and the role of human review. Original representations should be retained and remain auditable so that minority, technical or unusual views are not lost through automated summarisation. Respondents' voluntary disclosure of AI assistance should have no effect on the weight given to a representation. Any AI-generated analysis should be checked against the source responses before publication or reliance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1636

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

6.60 The stakeholder register should explicitly include local environmental and nature-recovery organisations, not rely solely on broad stakeholder categories. This should include groups concerned with biodiversity, Local Nature Recovery Strategy delivery, rivers and catchments, climate, active travel, farming, woodland and landscape. The current Statement of Community Involvement specifically recognises environmental and nature-conservation groups. That level of targeted engagement should be retained so locally held environmental evidence can inform the Plan before strategic decisions are made.

Comment

Representation ID: 1637

Received: 14/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Len Harvey

Monitoring should measure the quality and representativeness of engagement, not only participation numbers. The Council should publish participation by geography, age and relevant accessibility characteristics where lawful and proportionate, identify communities that are under-represented, and record what corrective engagement was undertaken. Monitoring should also report how many consultation issues resulted in a change, further evidence or no change, with reasons. This would provide a measurable test of whether the engagement strategy is actually achieving the inclusive outcomes claimed.