Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3594

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The Council needs to be clear that ‘national levelling’ process will be significantly detrimental to Cheshire and its residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 3595

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

It is to be hoped that plans will only be approved which significantly improve local, regional and national biodiversity, forestation, people’s health and well-being; amenity greenspace and visual impact (especially for areas in and adjacent to the national park or other areas of scientific, cultural, environmental and nature importance.

Comment

Representation ID: 3597

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

There is no mention of the important contribution of the rural economy and therefore loss or damage to the rural economy in Cheshire does not appear to be valued by the Council. This is disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising. Rural matters and the population of rural areas are too often an afterthought.

Comment

Representation ID: 3598

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The section on the rural economy should be in the previous ‘Economy’ section.
The narrative in this section gives a snapshot in time but does not describe the significant deforestation, loss of biodiversity and rare plants/animals, loss of rare habitats etc that have occurred in Cheshire over the past decades.

Comment

Representation ID: 3603

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The vision, aims and objectives should include promotion of the character of Cheshire as a historic, rural area with unique features for protection. They should also include ambitious objectives for the natural environment to redress previous damage, enhancement of health and well-being through a bio-diverse and thriving rural economy with access and outstanding visual amenity; habitat consolidation (rather than fragmentation) for wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 3604

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

The plan needs to enhance the role of the Green Belt by expanding its area and protection rather than reducing it. Under no circumstances should the extent of the Green Belt be reduced and ‘Grey’ belt areas should not be created in Cheshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 3606

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

This section needs to more clearly define what is meant by ‘countryside’ (ie what is a ‘settlement’ - is a settlement 2 or more houses? a farm?) to enable meaningful comment.

Comment

Representation ID: 3607

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

As in previous sections, the contribution of the rural economy is undervalued in this consultation, and the only ‘economic’ activity and development appears to be that associated with towns.
One might assume from this that the compilation of this consultation document is driven by delivering a particular and predetermined outcome rather than proper consideration of the full range of short, medium and long term issues affecting Cheshire and its residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 3609

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

This is another weak section of the proposed consultation. Cheshire has seen significant reductions in, for example, forestation, biodiversity, green space amenity and positive visual impact over the past decades. This consultation should be how we can stop further degradation in the natural environment and enhance the natural environment for the benefit of everyone in the medium to long term. This is not about incorporating amenity or greenspace into developments or some minor environmental offsets offered by developers but ensuring that we, as a minimum, don’t make the current situation worse.

Comment

Representation ID: 3610

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Simon Gillespie

There needs to be proper consideration of the evidence that ‘urban sprawl’ is detrimental to health and well-being.