Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3889

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Council should go further than simply recording and reporting consultation responses. It should clearly demonstrate how residents’ views have influenced the Local Plan, including where suggestions have been rejected and why. Consultation findings should be published in plain English and in sufficient detail to allow communities to understand how decisions were reached. The timetable should also be kept regularly updated, with any delays clearly explained. This is particularly important given the scale of proposed growth and the potential impact on local communities, infrastructure and the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 3890

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The principles are broadly appropriate, but “digital-first” should not result in digital engagement becoming the default at the expense of meaningful community participation. In-person meetings, local drop-in sessions, printed information and engagement through parish and town councils should be available, particularly in rural communities and for residents who may face barriers to online participation. The Council should also commit to demonstrating how consultation has influenced decisions, rather than simply recording responses. A further principle of “local and community-led” would strengthen the strategy and recognise the important role of existing community networks in reaching residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 3891

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The proposed “Inform → Consult → Participate → Feedback” approach is useful, but participation should be more than simply responding to information provided by the Council. Communities should have meaningful opportunities to help shape options before decisions are made, particularly where proposals could significantly affect their area. The Council should explain what level of influence residents can have at each stage and provide feedback showing how their contributions have affected the Plan. Consider adding “Co-design” or “Influence” to the model to demonstrate genuine two-way engagement rather than a predominantly consultation-led process.

Comment

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The stages are clear, but the strategy should provide greater clarity on how communities can influence decisions between each consultation stage. In particular, the scoping stage should not simply identify issues and evidence requirements; it should help shape the options that are subsequently developed. The Council should also publish a clear “You said, we did” summary after each stage, explaining which views have influenced the Plan and why other suggestions have not been taken forward. This would make the process more meaningful, transparent and accountable.

Comment

Representation ID: 3895

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The Council should commit to publishing full, accessible summaries of consultation responses, rather than only a high-level summary. Residents should be able to understand the key issues raised, the Council's response, and whether changes have been made as a result. The audit trail should also record engagement undertaken with communities, including parish and town councils, not just formal consultation responses. Given the scale of the Local Plan, this transparency will be essential to demonstrate that consultation has been meaningful and that community views have genuinely influenced the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 3897

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The proposed community assemblies are positive, but four to five meetings involving only around 25 residents cannot be considered representative of a borough the size and diversity of Cheshire East. The selection process should be transparent, with clear criteria for demographic and geographic representation, and should include rural communities, younger people, older residents and areas likely to experience significant development. The assemblies should complement, rather than replace, wider community engagement. The Council should also explain how the views of the assemblies will influence the Plan and ensure their recommendations and the Council's response are publicly reported.

Comment

Representation ID: 3899

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The range of methods is welcome, but relying on the Council website and OPUS as the primary engagement hub, with printed materials only available at Council offices, risks excluding residents who do not routinely use digital services or cannot easily travel to those offices. Printed information should also be available through libraries, town and parish councils, community centres and other local venues. The Council should provide accessible local drop-in sessions across the borough, particularly in areas proposed for significant development. Social media should be used to reach residents, not simply to promote consultations.

Comment

Representation ID: 3906

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The commitment to transparency and consistency is welcome, but communities and parish councils should have equivalent opportunities to understand and comment on proposed sites. The Council should publish site submissions, assessment criteria, evidence, scoring and reasons for selection or rejection at the earliest opportunity. Residents should also be able to identify and challenge factual inaccuracies in site submissions. The treatment of sites submitted after publication of the draft Plan should be clearly explained, including whether and how these “omission sites” could influence the Plan or examination.

Comment

Representation ID: 3914

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

The commitment to human oversight is welcome, but the Council should provide greater transparency about how AI will be used to analyse consultation responses. Residents should be assured that AI will not misinterpret, combine or reduce individual responses in a way that loses important local concerns. Any AI-assisted analysis should be independently checked, with a clear audit trail of its use. Disclosure of AI use by respondents should be voluntary and should not disadvantage representations. The Council should also publish its AI methodology and safeguards so residents can understand how their responses are processed.

Comment

Representation ID: 3924

Received: 31/08/2026

Respondent: Dr Gemma Jackson

This is a positive commitment, but it should be strengthened by requiring the Council to clearly demonstrate what changed as a result of consultation. Feedback should explain not only what views were received, but which suggestions were accepted, amended or rejected and why. This should be published promptly and in plain English after each consultation stage. An iterative process will only be meaningful if residents can see a clear link between their participation and the decisions made in developing the Local Plan.