Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 2314

Received: 24/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Great news that you are consulting, but you historically ignore feedback. prove us wrong this time ?

Comment

Representation ID: 2315

Received: 24/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Standard method for calculating housing need is flawed especially the affordability. It cannot be a negative number so cannot adjust for any previous over delivery. supplying more houses does not improve affordability - only works if you supply more of ONLY what is required. If 30% affordable, 70% are market rate, so the net effect is to increase prices on average, so affordability factor gets worse not better. Also, new houses are typically sold at a premium, often large executive houses that are bought by people from outside the area, lifting the average house price, again making affordability factor worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 2316

Received: 24/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

To the outside world, there is no visible progress on the 2024 call for sites. Right or wrong, it looks like you collected a list of sites and did nothing. If that is not a true reflection, let the public know what progress you made ? In a vacuum of knowledge, it can appear to others as if you deliberately did nothing so that the lack of 5 year housing supply remained in order that you could blame others for forcing unsuitable sites on you. If that's unfair(I hope it is), advise the public of the progress you made.

Comment

Representation ID: 2317

Received: 24/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

The local housing need can also be LOWER if justified. previous over delivery is a material consideration. Previous over delivery in CEC is much higher than you acknowledge. The LP target is out of date after 5 years and replaced by standard method. The SM target was well below 1,800 from 2022 onwards, hence why over delivery so high. If and how over delivery is accounted for is a matter for the decision maker ie YOU. Consequently you have ample justification to account for it as others do. Planning inspectorate decisions to the contrary are flawed- especially Ribble.

Comment

Representation ID: 3257

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

This is a really important policy. Lots of brownfield options, we really SHOULD actively develop these first. Issue is that developers choose not do that because they make less profit. However, if they were unable to get the more profitable green field sites, they would be more likely to go for brown field sites. Central government could do more by changing tax rules to encourage brownfield first. Saying "brownfield first" is not enough, we need to implement that policy. Saying no to greenfield sites is vital in that process. Rail House Crewe and the old BT building are prime examples.

Comment

Representation ID: 3259

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Sandbach needs more employment opportunities. Too great a proportion of residents commute to work and the town is gridlocked too often. Capricorn needs completing with high quality jobs. No more houses until the jobs are created locally !! National policy gives greater emphasis now to reducing the need to travel. Allowing more large executive houses to be built for people who work outside the area just increases the need to travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 3261

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

About 10 years ago, Sandbach was well connected in terms of links to the M6, but the single carriageway motorway bridge and related trunk roads can't cope with the volume of traffic anymore. The bridge is seriously damaged and needs an extensive repair. Plan for a replacement /new junction and don't build more houses until the road infrastriucture can cope. Sandbach rail station is not well located, so does not represent a viable alternative to car transport for most of the town. Sandbach is no longer well connected as it is seizing up under the volume of traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 3263

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Don't allow the character of these individual settlements to be damaged by over development. Sandbach is a small market town. It has grown by 37% since 2010 and the town centre and infrastructure can't cope with the number of houses already built and in the pipeline. It's now reached its limit. Continuing the current rate of development would transform the character of the settlement beyond what would be acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 3264

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Take account of the demographics of each area when considering applications. Sandbach has too many large detached homes, many of which are under-occupied. What we need is a small number (around 40 per year) of smaller properties on smaller sites within the new 800m recommended walking distance to the town centre. This would enable people to downsize to a house where they wouldn't need to drive. This would free up the existing larger houses for families. We do not need more large detached houses, particularly for people working outside the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 3278

Received: 30/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Steve Buckley

Cheshire east has exceeded the previous plan targets by a significant margin. Previous versions of the NPPF allowed such over delivery to be considered when assessing future housing need. Case law confirms it is a matter for the decision maker ie YOU. Your legal advice on the matter is flawed. I'm happy to provide full details if anyone is interested. We are all currently digesting the new NPPF. I haven't yet found anything that says previous over delivery cannot be accounted for, so hopefully the opportunity remains. This would reduce the forward requirement.