Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3780

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Plan should recognise Green Belt, agricultural land, wildlife, landscapes, waterways and heritage assets as essential assets, not simply land potentially available for development. With around 70% of Cheshire East being farmed land and significant areas of Green Belt, the cumulative loss of productive agricultural land and natural habitats should be properly assessed. Development should prioritise brownfield land and avoid unnecessary loss of farmland, biodiversity and landscape character, particularly where this would harm valued rural communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 3781

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Plan should recognise the distinct needs and constraints of Cheshire East’s rural communities. The fact that 18% of residents live in rural areas, including isolated settlements, means growth should not be concentrated disproportionately in villages simply because land is available. Development should reflect the scale and character of each settlement and consider access to services, public transport, roads, schools, healthcare and employment, while protecting agricultural land, wildlife and landscape.

Comment

Representation ID: 3784

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Plan should ensure that housing and infrastructure provision reflects Cheshire East’s ageing population and changing demographics. This should include sufficient accessible and adaptable homes, healthcare, social care, public transport and local services, enabling people to remain independent and connected within their communities. Population projections should be carefully assessed so that housing requirements reflect actual demographic need, rather than relying solely on overall growth figures.

Comment

Representation ID: 3785

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The proposed plan period to 2045 should be supported by robust evidence and realistic assumptions about population, housing need, infrastructure and environmental capacity. Given the scale of potential development, the Plan should include clear mechanisms to review and adjust growth if circumstances change. A five-year review should not simply increase housing delivery but should reassess whether planned development remains sustainable and whether infrastructure and environmental capacity can support it.

Comment

Representation ID: 3787

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

he vision should place equal importance on the wellbeing of existing communities and the protection of Cheshire East’s natural and agricultural environment, alongside growth. Priorities should include sustainable development, protection of Green Belt and farmland, biodiversity and wildlife, adequate infrastructure, affordable and appropriate housing, climate resilience and strong local communities. Measurable outcomes should track not only homes and economic growth, but also infrastructure delivery, biodiversity, farmland and Green Belt loss, environmental quality and community wellbeing.

Comment

Representation ID: 3789

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The spatial strategy should ensure that development is directed to locations that can genuinely accommodate growth, rather than simply where land is available. Site selection should give priority to brownfield and regeneration opportunities, while fully considering infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, environmental constraints, agricultural land, biodiversity, Green Belt and landscape character. The Plan should also assess the cumulative impact of development on existing communities and ensure necessary infrastructure is delivered alongside growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 3791

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The site assessment methodology should be transparent, evidence-based and consistently applied, with environmental and infrastructure constraints given appropriate weight. Please ensure brownfield sites are fully assessed and prioritised before greenfield or Green Belt land. Initial site assessments should be published in sufficient detail for communities to understand why sites have been included or rejected, with opportunities to challenge assessments and submit evidence before draft allocations are decided.

Comment

Representation ID: 3794

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Plan should provide strong protection for Cheshire East’s Green Belt and should not assume that land identified as “grey belt” is automatically suitable for development. The Green Belt assessment should be transparent and consider the wider environmental, landscape, agricultural, biodiversity and community value of sites, as well as Green Belt purposes. Brownfield and non-Green Belt land should be demonstrably exhausted first, with any proposed Green Belt release supported by clear evidence of genuinely exceptional circumstances and robust assessment of alternatives.

Comment

Representation ID: 3796

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Plan should retain and strengthen the strategic green gap around Crewe where it is needed to prevent further coalescence and protect the distinct identities of neighbouring settlements. The assessment should consider not only settlement separation but also landscape, agriculture, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, recreation and the role the gap plays for existing communities. Development should not be permitted where it would result in settlements merging or undermine the purpose and long-term effectiveness of the green gap.

Comment

Representation ID: 3797

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The settlement hierarchy should reflect the genuine capacity and character of each settlement, rather than simply its population or existing services. Assessment should consider infrastructure capacity, road and public transport connectivity, healthcare, schools, drainage, employment, biodiversity, landscape and agricultural land. Smaller villages such as Adlington should not be treated as suitable for significant growth simply because they have a railway station or other limited services. The cumulative impact of development on settlement character and neighbouring communities should also be considered.