Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Roger Teagle search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Representation Summary:
Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
Full text:
1.5 We’re also asking for your thoughts on the challenges of planning for more homes, how we create well-designed, healthy communities; the infrastructure needed to support growth, how we can protect and enhance our built and natural environments, support jobs and the economy and how we can tackle climate change within the planning system. Your thoughts on these questions will help us confirm the scope and develop options for the content of the new local plan.
I read with interest your consultation on the proposed Local Plan published in July 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments are intended to provide positive and constructive thoughts on what I would like to see from the Local Plan and address some of the issues above.
In summary, these are
• Prioritisation of Brownfield sites
• Infrastructure before development
• Climate change consideration
• Transparency over choice of sites
• Improved retirement accommodation
1. Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
2. Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
3. Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
4.Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
5. Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
Local plan scoping consultation
Housing for older people and specialist accommodation
Representation Summary:
Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Full text:
1.5 We’re also asking for your thoughts on the challenges of planning for more homes, how we create well-designed, healthy communities; the infrastructure needed to support growth, how we can protect and enhance our built and natural environments, support jobs and the economy and how we can tackle climate change within the planning system. Your thoughts on these questions will help us confirm the scope and develop options for the content of the new local plan.
I read with interest your consultation on the proposed Local Plan published in July 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments are intended to provide positive and constructive thoughts on what I would like to see from the Local Plan and address some of the issues above.
In summary, these are
• Prioritisation of Brownfield sites
• Infrastructure before development
• Climate change consideration
• Transparency over choice of sites
• Improved retirement accommodation
1. Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
2. Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
3. Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
4.Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
5. Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
Local plan scoping consultation
Representation Summary:
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
Full text:
1.5 We’re also asking for your thoughts on the challenges of planning for more homes, how we create well-designed, healthy communities; the infrastructure needed to support growth, how we can protect and enhance our built and natural environments, support jobs and the economy and how we can tackle climate change within the planning system. Your thoughts on these questions will help us confirm the scope and develop options for the content of the new local plan.
I read with interest your consultation on the proposed Local Plan published in July 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments are intended to provide positive and constructive thoughts on what I would like to see from the Local Plan and address some of the issues above.
In summary, these are
• Prioritisation of Brownfield sites
• Infrastructure before development
• Climate change consideration
• Transparency over choice of sites
• Improved retirement accommodation
1. Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
2. Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
3. Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
4.Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
5. Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Representation Summary:
Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
Full text:
1.5 We’re also asking for your thoughts on the challenges of planning for more homes, how we create well-designed, healthy communities; the infrastructure needed to support growth, how we can protect and enhance our built and natural environments, support jobs and the economy and how we can tackle climate change within the planning system. Your thoughts on these questions will help us confirm the scope and develop options for the content of the new local plan.
I read with interest your consultation on the proposed Local Plan published in July 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments are intended to provide positive and constructive thoughts on what I would like to see from the Local Plan and address some of the issues above.
In summary, these are
• Prioritisation of Brownfield sites
• Infrastructure before development
• Climate change consideration
• Transparency over choice of sites
• Improved retirement accommodation
1. Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
2. Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
3. Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
4.Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
5. Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation Summary:
Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
Full text:
1.5 We’re also asking for your thoughts on the challenges of planning for more homes, how we create well-designed, healthy communities; the infrastructure needed to support growth, how we can protect and enhance our built and natural environments, support jobs and the economy and how we can tackle climate change within the planning system. Your thoughts on these questions will help us confirm the scope and develop options for the content of the new local plan.
I read with interest your consultation on the proposed Local Plan published in July 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My comments are intended to provide positive and constructive thoughts on what I would like to see from the Local Plan and address some of the issues above.
In summary, these are
• Prioritisation of Brownfield sites
• Infrastructure before development
• Climate change consideration
• Transparency over choice of sites
• Improved retirement accommodation
1. Prioritse use of Brownfield sites and urban regeneration over Greenfield development.
I support the prioritisation of regeneration and development of brownfield sites. I would like the plan to address this and clearly show how existing brownfield sites in Cheshire East have been assessed and how they will provide a proportion of the required sites to meet housing targets. These should include both under-utilised, derelict and empty properties as well as sites with lapsed or inactive planning permissions. Cheshire East should demonstrate and publish its assessment of brownfield & regeneration sites, providing evidence before any consideration of greenbelt development.
While housing targets are imposed by central government, these requirements must not constitute exceptional circumstances for altering the designation of land from greenbelt to grey or other designation without a proper assessment of brownfield sites first.
2. Infrastructure before development.
The plan should show how the effect of proposed development is to be supported by adequate infrastructure. This must also account for previous development that occurred without sufficient infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure must happen before development and not follow it. Planning infrastructure is as important as planning for houses or businesses. It must include an evidence-based assessment of
• Traffic planning and increased road maintenance liabilities
• Water, sewerage, and drainage planning
• Sustainable urban drainage and flood mitigation
• Gas, electricity and digital infrastructure
• Schools, GP surgeries and hospital capacity planning
• Public transport, integration and cycling and walking provision
This needs to go beyond token improvements. The council should publish a comprehensive infrastructure policy to support its proposed increased building plans, including how this will be delivered within the context of privatised utilities.
3. Demonstrate how the plan gives weight to climate change, biodiversity protection and existing landscapes.
The plan should show how proposed development will protect existing natural environmental assets.
• Protection and retention of mature woodland, scrubland and hedgerows.
• There must be a presumption that protection is the norm and not the exception.
• Protection of existing natural flood attenuation - river flood plain, ponds, wetlands and peat.
Simply allowing developers to destroy existing natural features then replant or dig new ones is insufficient; it fails to account for biodiversity loss or the embedded carbon in the woodland, hedge, or wetland. This might fit the definition of 'biodiversity net gain' on paper, but in reality is expensive and pointless. How many new house building sites unnecessarily tear out long-established, species-rich hedgerows only to replant them later with single species whips that will take 30 or 40 years to mature? Why not ensure the protection of the original woodland or pond in the first place?
4.Transparency on sites for development and their assessment.
The plan showing proposed development areas submitted during the call for sites is useful, but it lacks sufficient detail for making reasonable comments at this stage. For instance, we need more information about the meaning of mixed use development. This is unclear to the layman.
Many of the large sites shown are on greenfield areas. Currently, the Local Plan does not clarify how these sites would be considered against brownfield sites, nor how many houses could be built without using greenfield locations. Such information would be useful.
5. Improved provision of retirement accommodation.
Many older people without families occupy larger homes and would like to downsize but the lack of good quality smaller accommodation suitable for older people in Cheshire East prevents this, which in turn prevents larger homes from becoming available for families. Such housing can be high-density, close to town centres and can utilize brownfield sites. Good examples exist in Macclesfield at the Buxton Road development next to Macclesfield Canal but there should be more of these. Freeing up under-occupied and empty larger properties can significantly contribute to housing supply across the country, which in turn reduces the need to build as many new homes.
The Local Plan should set out steps to increase the provision of these properties.
Finally, a comment on the timing of the consultation. Releasing it for comment during the peak summer holiday period when many people are on holiday and organisations suspend meetings is unhelpful. If you truly want responses, then please reconsider the timing of future consultations.
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
