Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 5734

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Tony Jones

The respondent raises concerns that potential development sites could result in excessive urban sprawl and encroachment into open countryside. They advocate a brownfield-first approach, with regeneration focused within Crewe and existing surrounding settlements rather than continued outward expansion. The respondent argues that large-scale peripheral development could place additional pressure on existing utilities and divert investment from urban regeneration. While recognising that some expansion may be necessary, they believe a high threshold should apply to development in open countryside to ensure future growth is sustainable and maintains a liveable environment for residents and businesses.

Comment

Representation ID: 5735

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Tony Jones

The respondent calls for the Local Plan to strengthen and enforce Strategic Green Gaps around Crewe, Leighton and neighbouring rural parishes. They argue that settlement coalescence would erode local character and village identity while fragmenting important rural buffer areas. The respondent also seeks stronger planning boundaries to resist speculative development arising from temporary shortfalls in the Council’s five-year housing land supply and to protect the distinct identities and separation of existing communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 5736

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Tony Jones

The respondent calls for infrastructure to be delivered before substantial housing occupation, with enforceable planning requirements covering transport, education and healthcare. They raise concerns about primary school capacity around Crewe and the financial sustainability of school provision, advocating coordinated larger schools serving multiple developments. They argue that developers should fund necessary additional educational capacity. The respondent also questions the effectiveness of relying on Section 106 financial contributions and favours direct delivery of physical infrastructure where appropriate. Overall, they seek an infrastructure-led approach to growth that ensures essential services and facilities are operational before significant new residential development is occupied.

Comment

Representation ID: 5737

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Tony Jones

The respondent raises concerns about highway capacity associated with large-scale housing growth in southern Cheshire East, particularly reliance on the A530 around Leighton Hospital and Bentley and existing bottlenecks at Alvaston and the Middlewich canal bridge. They consider that a proposed rail station near Leighton Hospital would not remove the need for significant highway improvements and argue that major residential development should depend on appropriate road upgrades being delivered first. Conversely, they support proposals to improve connections from M6 Junction 16, considering this could support sustainable housing, logistics and higher-value employment growth around Crewe and the A500 corridor.

Comment

Representation ID: 5739

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Tony Jones

The respondent argues that food security and climate resilience should be given greater consideration in the Local Plan, with productive agricultural land recognised as a finite strategic resource. They highlight Cheshire’s agricultural importance and call for stronger protection of food-producing land, including Grade 3b soils, particularly where brownfield alternatives remain available. The respondent also seeks reform of Agricultural Land Classification assessments, expressing concern about reliance on developer-funded evidence. They advocate independent third-party verification of land classifications, commissioned by the local planning authority and funded through developer contributions, to ensure agricultural land quality is assessed objectively before development decisions are made.