Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to respond to the consultation on the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for the future and that people need homes, jobs, infrastructure and thriving communities. However, I am deeply concerned that the scale and location of future development could cause irreversible damage to the natural environment on which those communities depend.
The Local Plan must therefore put climate resilience, biodiversity, protection of natural carbon stores, sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations at its heart.
Climate change and natural carbon stores
Climate change must be a fundamental consideration throughout the planning process.
We should be protecting and increasing our natural capacity to store carbon, not destroying it. This is particularly important for peatlands, which are significant natural carbon stores as well as valuable habitats and natural flood-management systems.
There is an important contradiction that the Local Plan should address. Government is encouraging farmers and landowners to protect and restore peatlands, keep them wet and explore forms of wetter agriculture such as paludiculture because of the benefits they provide for carbon storage, biodiversity and climate resilience.
Why would we spend public money encouraging landowners to protect and restore peatlands while allowing the planning system to destroy those same natural carbon stores through development?
We are in a climate crisis. The planning system should be helping to keep carbon in the ground, not creating circumstances in which it is released.
The Local Plan should therefore establish a strong presumption against development on peatlands and other significant natural carbon stores. Land should be assessed not simply according to whether it is technically developable, but according to the carbon, biodiversity, water-management and wider ecosystem services that would be lost if it were developed.
At a time when we are asking landowners to help us keep carbon in the ground, we should not be asking the planning system to release it.
Biodiversity and the need for space for nature
The importance of reversing biodiversity loss cannot be overstated.
Human beings and human society are entirely dependent on functioning natural systems. We rely on nature for food, clean water, clean air, pollination, healthy soils, carbon storage, flood regulation and countless other essential services.
The continued loss and fragmentation of biodiversity is therefore not simply a problem for wildlife. Ultimately, it threatens human wellbeing and the resilience of human society.
We cannot continue converting natural environments to serve our immediate needs while assuming that the natural systems on which we depend will somehow continue to function.
Nature needs space.
Protecting a small number of isolated nature reserves is not enough. Wildlife needs connected habitats, ecological corridors, buffer areas and sufficient space for healthy and resilient populations.
The Local Plan should make the protection and recovery of biodiversity a fundamental principle of spatial planning.
Existing nature cannot simply be replaced
The Local Plan should recognise that existing habitats and natural features cannot simply be recreated elsewhere once they have been destroyed.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting an existing functioning ecosystem and attempting to create a replacement habitat somewhere else after development has destroyed it.
A newly created habitat cannot immediately replace an established woodland, wetland, peatland, meadow or other mature habitat with its complex relationships between plants, animals, fungi, soils and microorganisms.
When natural land is developed, the consequences are immediate. Living organisms are displaced or killed, their homes are destroyed and established ecological relationships are broken. Thousands of individual plants and animals may be affected, along with the countless organisms in the soil and wider ecosystem that are rarely even considered.
At the same time, society loses the benefits these ecosystems provide — carbon storage, flood regulation, water management, pollination, soil health, air quality, recreation, cooling, mental wellbeing and opportunities to experience nature.
It therefore makes little sense to destroy functioning natural systems and then spend considerable amounts of money attempting to recreate some of their functions elsewhere.
Where valuable nature already exists, protecting it is far better than destroying it and attempting to recreate it somewhere else.
The Local Plan should adopt the principle of avoidance before mitigation and compensation. Development should first be directed away from areas of significant ecological and environmental value, rather than assuming environmental damage can subsequently be repaired.
Housing need and the use of existing land and homes
I fully recognise that people need homes and that Cheshire East has a responsibility to provide sufficient good-quality, genuinely affordable housing.
However, addressing housing need should not simply mean continually releasing more land for development, particularly greenfield land.
Before concluding that large amounts of additional land are required, the Council should thoroughly examine whether we are making proper use of the homes, buildings and previously developed land that already exist.
There are properties that remain empty for prolonged periods, as well as homes that can be held primarily as investment assets rather than being occupied by people who genuinely need somewhere to live. Large corporations, investment interests and property owners can hold housing as financial assets while people struggle to find affordable homes.
This raises an important question about what we actually mean when we describe the situation as a housing crisis.
We should not automatically assume that the only solution is to build more and more homes on undeveloped land.
The Council should investigate the scale and nature of empty homes, long-term vacant properties, second homes and housing held primarily as investment assets, and consider what measures could bring suitable existing properties back into use.
Where appropriate, the Council should also consider whether publicly owned housing, including housing owned or acquired by the Council, could play a greater role in ensuring that existing housing stock is available to people who genuinely need homes.
People need homes. They do not necessarily need more land converted into property assets.
It is not environmentally sustainable to destroy valuable countryside, green space, wildlife habitat and natural carbon stores to build additional property while suitable existing homes remain empty or are primarily treated as financial assets.
Brownfield land before greenfield land
I believe the Council should adopt a clear principle that greenfield land should not be released for development until suitable brownfield opportunities have been thoroughly identified, assessed and considered.
The Council should maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of previously developed land and establish how much housing and other development can realistically be accommodated on suitable brownfield sites.
Greenfield land should not be treated simply as undeveloped land waiting for a future use. It may already be providing essential services to people and supporting complex communities of living organisms.
Particularly where greenfield land has ecological, environmental, landscape, recreational or climate benefits, these benefits should be fully recognised before any decision is made to develop it.
Green Belt and the countryside
I support the continued protection of Green Belt land and believe the Local Plan should properly recognise all of its purposes, including safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Open countryside can also provide essential ecological connectivity between areas of high biodiversity.
Where land performs this function, it should not simply be reclassified as “Grey Belt” in order to facilitate development. The wider environmental role of land should be considered rather than looking only at whether it is technically developable.
Protection of wildlife sites and ecological connectivity
All wildlife sites should be properly protected, whether they are locally designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites or nationally designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protection should also consider land surrounding important wildlife sites.
Adjacent land can provide important buffer areas, wildlife corridors and alternative habitat, helping ecosystems remain resilient to pressures such as extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
Cheshire East should not become a collection of isolated wildlife sites surrounded by development, with insufficient space or connectivity for wildlife to move and thrive.
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
The new Local Plan should be closely aligned with Cheshire East's Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Nature recovery needs to be considered at a landscape scale. Protecting individual sites is not enough if wildlife cannot move between them or if surrounding habitats are continually lost to development.
The Local Plan should identify and protect ecological corridors and opportunities for habitat restoration, creating a connected network in which wildlife can survive and recover.
Green space and human wellbeing
Natural green spaces, particularly those close to existing urban areas, have enormous value for both wildlife and people.
They provide opportunities for recreation, exercise and contact with nature and contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. They also provide valuable ecosystem services including cooling, carbon storage, water management and flood mitigation.
These benefits should be recognised as essential infrastructure, rather than being treated as a luxury or something that can be provided only after other development needs have been met.
Supporting housing must not come at the cost of nature and green space and the inordinate number of benefits they provide.
Flooding and climate resilience
Avoiding development in areas at risk of flooding should be an important consideration when determining where development should take place.
With climate change increasing the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, the Council should take a long-term approach to flood risk.
Development should not increase flood risk for existing communities, and the natural flood-management functions provided by wetlands, peatlands, open land and other natural habitats should be protected.
The scale of housing growth
Finally, I ask the Council to critically examine the proposed level of housing growth and the evidence supporting it.
The proposed 146% increase in housing raises serious questions about whether this level of growth is genuinely sustainable in the context of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, infrastructure pressures, flooding and the need to protect our remaining natural environments.
The Council should challenge whether such a substantial increase is appropriate and sustainable, rather than simply treating the housing requirement as a number that must be accommodated regardless of its environmental consequences.
The evidence and sustainability assessments underpinning the Local Plan should demonstrate that the proposed scale and distribution of development are compatible with Cheshire East's climate, biodiversity and environmental objectives.
If this scale of housing is genuinely unavoidable
If the Council concludes that housing must be provided at anything approaching the proposed scale, then the standard of that development must reflect the climate and ecological crisis we are facing.
It should not be acceptable to build large numbers of homes using standards that will lock residents into high energy and water consumption, generate unnecessary waste and require expensive retrofitting in the future.
Every new home should be designed for the future from the outset.
At an absolute minimum, new housing should aim to be:
• Net-zero operational carbon, with exceptionally high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
• Powered by renewable energy, with on-site generation such as solar as standard and wind wherever technically feasible.
• Designed to minimise or eradicate household energy bills, rather than leaving residents exposed to permanently high energy costs.
• Water efficient, incorporating rainwater capture and reuse wherever appropriate and sustainable drainage systems.
• Zero or Low-waste, both in construction and throughout the lifetime of the home.
• Prepared for a changing climate, including overheating, extreme temperatures, drought and increased rainfall.
• Designed for sustainable heating and cooling, avoiding the need for future expensive retrofits.
• Built around access to nature, green space, walking and cycling, rather than creating communities dependent on private cars.
• Designed to support healthy communities, with access to green space, recreation, services and opportunities for social connection.
If housing really is required at this scale, we should be building homes that are fit for the next century, not homes that will need to be upgraded, insulated, decarbonised and adapted at enormous cost within a few decades.
There is also an issue of intergenerational fairness. If we build millions of pounds' worth of infrastructure today while locking future residents into high energy consumption, poor climate resilience and environmental damage, we are effectively passing the cost of today's decisions to tomorrow's population.
Anything less than genuinely sustainable, climate-resilient housing at this scale would be a failure of long-term planning.
We have the knowledge and technology to build homes that use dramatically less energy, generate renewable energy, capture and manage water, minimise waste and provide healthier environments for the people who live in them.
If the Council believes this scale of housing development is genuinely unavoidable, then it should demand the very highest standards from every home built.
We should not accept a choice between providing homes and protecting the planet. We need to provide homes in a way that protects the conditions necessary for humanity to thrive.
Anything less risks showing disregard not only for the environment, but for the people and future generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.
Conclusion
I recognise the need for homes and for communities to grow. But genuine sustainability means asking how much development we actually need, where it should go, and what we are prepared to destroy in order to provide it.
We cannot solve one problem by creating several others.
Destroying functioning natural environments has consequences for wildlife, for climate resilience, for flood risk, for human wellbeing and ultimately for the resilience of human society itself.
Once biodiversity, mature habitats and natural carbon stores have been destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated elsewhere at the stroke of a planning pen.
Nature is not a temporary land use. Biodiversity is not replaceable infrastructure. Green space is not an optional extra. Natural carbon stores should not be treated as development opportunities.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise previously developed and suitable brownfield land, make full use of existing housing stock, protect green space and natural carbon stores, avoid irreplaceable habitats, maintain ecological connectivity and direct development towards locations where it can genuinely be accommodated sustainably.
Most importantly, the plan should leave future generations with an environment capable of supporting them.

I am writing to respond to the consultation on the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for the future and that people need homes, jobs, infrastructure and thriving communities. However, I am deeply concerned that the scale and location of future development could cause irreversible damage to the natural environment on which those communities depend.
The Local Plan must therefore put climate resilience, biodiversity, protection of natural carbon stores, sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations at its heart.
Climate change and natural carbon stores
Climate change must be a fundamental consideration throughout the planning process.
We should be protecting and increasing our natural capacity to store carbon, not destroying it. This is particularly important for peatlands, which are significant natural carbon stores as well as valuable habitats and natural flood-management systems.
There is an important contradiction that the Local Plan should address. Government is encouraging farmers and landowners to protect and restore peatlands, keep them wet and explore forms of wetter agriculture such as paludiculture because of the benefits they provide for carbon storage, biodiversity and climate resilience.
Why would we spend public money encouraging landowners to protect and restore peatlands while allowing the planning system to destroy those same natural carbon stores through development?
We are in a climate crisis. The planning system should be helping to keep carbon in the ground, not creating circumstances in which it is released.
The Local Plan should therefore establish a strong presumption against development on peatlands and other significant natural carbon stores. Land should be assessed not simply according to whether it is technically developable, but according to the carbon, biodiversity, water-management and wider ecosystem services that would be lost if it were developed.
At a time when we are asking landowners to help us keep carbon in the ground, we should not be asking the planning system to release it.
Biodiversity and the need for space for nature
The importance of reversing biodiversity loss cannot be overstated.
Human beings and human society are entirely dependent on functioning natural systems. We rely on nature for food, clean water, clean air, pollination, healthy soils, carbon storage, flood regulation and countless other essential services.
The continued loss and fragmentation of biodiversity is therefore not simply a problem for wildlife. Ultimately, it threatens human wellbeing and the resilience of human society.
We cannot continue converting natural environments to serve our immediate needs while assuming that the natural systems on which we depend will somehow continue to function.
Nature needs space.
Protecting a small number of isolated nature reserves is not enough. Wildlife needs connected habitats, ecological corridors, buffer areas and sufficient space for healthy and resilient populations.
The Local Plan should make the protection and recovery of biodiversity a fundamental principle of spatial planning.
Existing nature cannot simply be replaced
The Local Plan should recognise that existing habitats and natural features cannot simply be recreated elsewhere once they have been destroyed.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting an existing functioning ecosystem and attempting to create a replacement habitat somewhere else after development has destroyed it.
A newly created habitat cannot immediately replace an established woodland, wetland, peatland, meadow or other mature habitat with its complex relationships between plants, animals, fungi, soils and microorganisms.
When natural land is developed, the consequences are immediate. Living organisms are displaced or killed, their homes are destroyed and established ecological relationships are broken. Thousands of individual plants and animals may be affected, along with the countless organisms in the soil and wider ecosystem that are rarely even considered.
At the same time, society loses the benefits these ecosystems provide — carbon storage, flood regulation, water management, pollination, soil health, air quality, recreation, cooling, mental wellbeing and opportunities to experience nature.
It therefore makes little sense to destroy functioning natural systems and then spend considerable amounts of money attempting to recreate some of their functions elsewhere.
Where valuable nature already exists, protecting it is far better than destroying it and attempting to recreate it somewhere else.
The Local Plan should adopt the principle of avoidance before mitigation and compensation. Development should first be directed away from areas of significant ecological and environmental value, rather than assuming environmental damage can subsequently be repaired.
Housing need and the use of existing land and homes
I fully recognise that people need homes and that Cheshire East has a responsibility to provide sufficient good-quality, genuinely affordable housing.
However, addressing housing need should not simply mean continually releasing more land for development, particularly greenfield land.
Before concluding that large amounts of additional land are required, the Council should thoroughly examine whether we are making proper use of the homes, buildings and previously developed land that already exist.
There are properties that remain empty for prolonged periods, as well as homes that can be held primarily as investment assets rather than being occupied by people who genuinely need somewhere to live. Large corporations, investment interests and property owners can hold housing as financial assets while people struggle to find affordable homes.
This raises an important question about what we actually mean when we describe the situation as a housing crisis.
We should not automatically assume that the only solution is to build more and more homes on undeveloped land.
The Council should investigate the scale and nature of empty homes, long-term vacant properties, second homes and housing held primarily as investment assets, and consider what measures could bring suitable existing properties back into use.
Where appropriate, the Council should also consider whether publicly owned housing, including housing owned or acquired by the Council, could play a greater role in ensuring that existing housing stock is available to people who genuinely need homes.
People need homes. They do not necessarily need more land converted into property assets.
It is not environmentally sustainable to destroy valuable countryside, green space, wildlife habitat and natural carbon stores to build additional property while suitable existing homes remain empty or are primarily treated as financial assets.
Brownfield land before greenfield land
I believe the Council should adopt a clear principle that greenfield land should not be released for development until suitable brownfield opportunities have been thoroughly identified, assessed and considered.
The Council should maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of previously developed land and establish how much housing and other development can realistically be accommodated on suitable brownfield sites.
Greenfield land should not be treated simply as undeveloped land waiting for a future use. It may already be providing essential services to people and supporting complex communities of living organisms.
Particularly where greenfield land has ecological, environmental, landscape, recreational or climate benefits, these benefits should be fully recognised before any decision is made to develop it.
Green Belt and the countryside
I support the continued protection of Green Belt land and believe the Local Plan should properly recognise all of its purposes, including safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Open countryside can also provide essential ecological connectivity between areas of high biodiversity.
Where land performs this function, it should not simply be reclassified as “Grey Belt” in order to facilitate development. The wider environmental role of land should be considered rather than looking only at whether it is technically developable.
Protection of wildlife sites and ecological connectivity
All wildlife sites should be properly protected, whether they are locally designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites or nationally designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protection should also consider land surrounding important wildlife sites.
Adjacent land can provide important buffer areas, wildlife corridors and alternative habitat, helping ecosystems remain resilient to pressures such as extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
Cheshire East should not become a collection of isolated wildlife sites surrounded by development, with insufficient space or connectivity for wildlife to move and thrive.
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
The new Local Plan should be closely aligned with Cheshire East's Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Nature recovery needs to be considered at a landscape scale. Protecting individual sites is not enough if wildlife cannot move between them or if surrounding habitats are continually lost to development.
The Local Plan should identify and protect ecological corridors and opportunities for habitat restoration, creating a connected network in which wildlife can survive and recover.
Green space and human wellbeing
Natural green spaces, particularly those close to existing urban areas, have enormous value for both wildlife and people.
They provide opportunities for recreation, exercise and contact with nature and contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. They also provide valuable ecosystem services including cooling, carbon storage, water management and flood mitigation.
These benefits should be recognised as essential infrastructure, rather than being treated as a luxury or something that can be provided only after other development needs have been met.
Supporting housing must not come at the cost of nature and green space and the inordinate number of benefits they provide.
Flooding and climate resilience
Avoiding development in areas at risk of flooding should be an important consideration when determining where development should take place.
With climate change increasing the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, the Council should take a long-term approach to flood risk.
Development should not increase flood risk for existing communities, and the natural flood-management functions provided by wetlands, peatlands, open land and other natural habitats should be protected.
The scale of housing growth
Finally, I ask the Council to critically examine the proposed level of housing growth and the evidence supporting it.
The proposed 146% increase in housing raises serious questions about whether this level of growth is genuinely sustainable in the context of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, infrastructure pressures, flooding and the need to protect our remaining natural environments.
The Council should challenge whether such a substantial increase is appropriate and sustainable, rather than simply treating the housing requirement as a number that must be accommodated regardless of its environmental consequences.
The evidence and sustainability assessments underpinning the Local Plan should demonstrate that the proposed scale and distribution of development are compatible with Cheshire East's climate, biodiversity and environmental objectives.
If this scale of housing is genuinely unavoidable
If the Council concludes that housing must be provided at anything approaching the proposed scale, then the standard of that development must reflect the climate and ecological crisis we are facing.
It should not be acceptable to build large numbers of homes using standards that will lock residents into high energy and water consumption, generate unnecessary waste and require expensive retrofitting in the future.
Every new home should be designed for the future from the outset.
At an absolute minimum, new housing should aim to be:
• Net-zero operational carbon, with exceptionally high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
• Powered by renewable energy, with on-site generation such as solar as standard and wind wherever technically feasible.
• Designed to minimise or eradicate household energy bills, rather than leaving residents exposed to permanently high energy costs.
• Water efficient, incorporating rainwater capture and reuse wherever appropriate and sustainable drainage systems.
• Zero or Low-waste, both in construction and throughout the lifetime of the home.
• Prepared for a changing climate, including overheating, extreme temperatures, drought and increased rainfall.
• Designed for sustainable heating and cooling, avoiding the need for future expensive retrofits.
• Built around access to nature, green space, walking and cycling, rather than creating communities dependent on private cars.
• Designed to support healthy communities, with access to green space, recreation, services and opportunities for social connection.
If housing really is required at this scale, we should be building homes that are fit for the next century, not homes that will need to be upgraded, insulated, decarbonised and adapted at enormous cost within a few decades.
There is also an issue of intergenerational fairness. If we build millions of pounds' worth of infrastructure today while locking future residents into high energy consumption, poor climate resilience and environmental damage, we are effectively passing the cost of today's decisions to tomorrow's population.
Anything less than genuinely sustainable, climate-resilient housing at this scale would be a failure of long-term planning.
We have the knowledge and technology to build homes that use dramatically less energy, generate renewable energy, capture and manage water, minimise waste and provide healthier environments for the people who live in them.
If the Council believes this scale of housing development is genuinely unavoidable, then it should demand the very highest standards from every home built.
We should not accept a choice between providing homes and protecting the planet. We need to provide homes in a way that protects the conditions necessary for humanity to thrive.
Anything less risks showing disregard not only for the environment, but for the people and future generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.
Conclusion
I recognise the need for homes and for communities to grow. But genuine sustainability means asking how much development we actually need, where it should go, and what we are prepared to destroy in order to provide it.
We cannot solve one problem by creating several others.
Destroying functioning natural environments has consequences for wildlife, for climate resilience, for flood risk, for human wellbeing and ultimately for the resilience of human society itself.
Once biodiversity, mature habitats and natural carbon stores have been destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated elsewhere at the stroke of a planning pen.
Nature is not a temporary land use. Biodiversity is not replaceable infrastructure. Green space is not an optional extra. Natural carbon stores should not be treated as development opportunities.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise previously developed and suitable brownfield land, make full use of existing housing stock, protect green space and natural carbon stores, avoid irreplaceable habitats, maintain ecological connectivity and direct development towards locations where it can genuinely be accommodated sustainably.
Most importantly, the plan should leave future generations with an environment capable of supporting them.

I am writing to respond to the consultation on the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for the future and that people need homes, jobs, infrastructure and thriving communities. However, I am deeply concerned that the scale and location of future development could cause irreversible damage to the natural environment on which those communities depend.
The Local Plan must therefore put climate resilience, biodiversity, protection of natural carbon stores, sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations at its heart.
Climate change and natural carbon stores
Climate change must be a fundamental consideration throughout the planning process.
We should be protecting and increasing our natural capacity to store carbon, not destroying it. This is particularly important for peatlands, which are significant natural carbon stores as well as valuable habitats and natural flood-management systems.
There is an important contradiction that the Local Plan should address. Government is encouraging farmers and landowners to protect and restore peatlands, keep them wet and explore forms of wetter agriculture such as paludiculture because of the benefits they provide for carbon storage, biodiversity and climate resilience.
Why would we spend public money encouraging landowners to protect and restore peatlands while allowing the planning system to destroy those same natural carbon stores through development?
We are in a climate crisis. The planning system should be helping to keep carbon in the ground, not creating circumstances in which it is released.
The Local Plan should therefore establish a strong presumption against development on peatlands and other significant natural carbon stores. Land should be assessed not simply according to whether it is technically developable, but according to the carbon, biodiversity, water-management and wider ecosystem services that would be lost if it were developed.
At a time when we are asking landowners to help us keep carbon in the ground, we should not be asking the planning system to release it.
Biodiversity and the need for space for nature
The importance of reversing biodiversity loss cannot be overstated.
Human beings and human society are entirely dependent on functioning natural systems. We rely on nature for food, clean water, clean air, pollination, healthy soils, carbon storage, flood regulation and countless other essential services.
The continued loss and fragmentation of biodiversity is therefore not simply a problem for wildlife. Ultimately, it threatens human wellbeing and the resilience of human society.
We cannot continue converting natural environments to serve our immediate needs while assuming that the natural systems on which we depend will somehow continue to function.
Nature needs space.
Protecting a small number of isolated nature reserves is not enough. Wildlife needs connected habitats, ecological corridors, buffer areas and sufficient space for healthy and resilient populations.
The Local Plan should make the protection and recovery of biodiversity a fundamental principle of spatial planning.
Existing nature cannot simply be replaced
The Local Plan should recognise that existing habitats and natural features cannot simply be recreated elsewhere once they have been destroyed.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting an existing functioning ecosystem and attempting to create a replacement habitat somewhere else after development has destroyed it.
A newly created habitat cannot immediately replace an established woodland, wetland, peatland, meadow or other mature habitat with its complex relationships between plants, animals, fungi, soils and microorganisms.
When natural land is developed, the consequences are immediate. Living organisms are displaced or killed, their homes are destroyed and established ecological relationships are broken. Thousands of individual plants and animals may be affected, along with the countless organisms in the soil and wider ecosystem that are rarely even considered.
At the same time, society loses the benefits these ecosystems provide — carbon storage, flood regulation, water management, pollination, soil health, air quality, recreation, cooling, mental wellbeing and opportunities to experience nature.
It therefore makes little sense to destroy functioning natural systems and then spend considerable amounts of money attempting to recreate some of their functions elsewhere.
Where valuable nature already exists, protecting it is far better than destroying it and attempting to recreate it somewhere else.
The Local Plan should adopt the principle of avoidance before mitigation and compensation. Development should first be directed away from areas of significant ecological and environmental value, rather than assuming environmental damage can subsequently be repaired.
Housing need and the use of existing land and homes
I fully recognise that people need homes and that Cheshire East has a responsibility to provide sufficient good-quality, genuinely affordable housing.
However, addressing housing need should not simply mean continually releasing more land for development, particularly greenfield land.
Before concluding that large amounts of additional land are required, the Council should thoroughly examine whether we are making proper use of the homes, buildings and previously developed land that already exist.
There are properties that remain empty for prolonged periods, as well as homes that can be held primarily as investment assets rather than being occupied by people who genuinely need somewhere to live. Large corporations, investment interests and property owners can hold housing as financial assets while people struggle to find affordable homes.
This raises an important question about what we actually mean when we describe the situation as a housing crisis.
We should not automatically assume that the only solution is to build more and more homes on undeveloped land.
The Council should investigate the scale and nature of empty homes, long-term vacant properties, second homes and housing held primarily as investment assets, and consider what measures could bring suitable existing properties back into use.
Where appropriate, the Council should also consider whether publicly owned housing, including housing owned or acquired by the Council, could play a greater role in ensuring that existing housing stock is available to people who genuinely need homes.
People need homes. They do not necessarily need more land converted into property assets.
It is not environmentally sustainable to destroy valuable countryside, green space, wildlife habitat and natural carbon stores to build additional property while suitable existing homes remain empty or are primarily treated as financial assets.
Brownfield land before greenfield land
I believe the Council should adopt a clear principle that greenfield land should not be released for development until suitable brownfield opportunities have been thoroughly identified, assessed and considered.
The Council should maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of previously developed land and establish how much housing and other development can realistically be accommodated on suitable brownfield sites.
Greenfield land should not be treated simply as undeveloped land waiting for a future use. It may already be providing essential services to people and supporting complex communities of living organisms.
Particularly where greenfield land has ecological, environmental, landscape, recreational or climate benefits, these benefits should be fully recognised before any decision is made to develop it.
Green Belt and the countryside
I support the continued protection of Green Belt land and believe the Local Plan should properly recognise all of its purposes, including safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Open countryside can also provide essential ecological connectivity between areas of high biodiversity.
Where land performs this function, it should not simply be reclassified as “Grey Belt” in order to facilitate development. The wider environmental role of land should be considered rather than looking only at whether it is technically developable.
Protection of wildlife sites and ecological connectivity
All wildlife sites should be properly protected, whether they are locally designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites or nationally designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protection should also consider land surrounding important wildlife sites.
Adjacent land can provide important buffer areas, wildlife corridors and alternative habitat, helping ecosystems remain resilient to pressures such as extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
Cheshire East should not become a collection of isolated wildlife sites surrounded by development, with insufficient space or connectivity for wildlife to move and thrive.
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
The new Local Plan should be closely aligned with Cheshire East's Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Nature recovery needs to be considered at a landscape scale. Protecting individual sites is not enough if wildlife cannot move between them or if surrounding habitats are continually lost to development.
The Local Plan should identify and protect ecological corridors and opportunities for habitat restoration, creating a connected network in which wildlife can survive and recover.
Green space and human wellbeing
Natural green spaces, particularly those close to existing urban areas, have enormous value for both wildlife and people.
They provide opportunities for recreation, exercise and contact with nature and contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. They also provide valuable ecosystem services including cooling, carbon storage, water management and flood mitigation.
These benefits should be recognised as essential infrastructure, rather than being treated as a luxury or something that can be provided only after other development needs have been met.
Supporting housing must not come at the cost of nature and green space and the inordinate number of benefits they provide.
Flooding and climate resilience
Avoiding development in areas at risk of flooding should be an important consideration when determining where development should take place.
With climate change increasing the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, the Council should take a long-term approach to flood risk.
Development should not increase flood risk for existing communities, and the natural flood-management functions provided by wetlands, peatlands, open land and other natural habitats should be protected.
The scale of housing growth
Finally, I ask the Council to critically examine the proposed level of housing growth and the evidence supporting it.
The proposed 146% increase in housing raises serious questions about whether this level of growth is genuinely sustainable in the context of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, infrastructure pressures, flooding and the need to protect our remaining natural environments.
The Council should challenge whether such a substantial increase is appropriate and sustainable, rather than simply treating the housing requirement as a number that must be accommodated regardless of its environmental consequences.
The evidence and sustainability assessments underpinning the Local Plan should demonstrate that the proposed scale and distribution of development are compatible with Cheshire East's climate, biodiversity and environmental objectives.
If this scale of housing is genuinely unavoidable
If the Council concludes that housing must be provided at anything approaching the proposed scale, then the standard of that development must reflect the climate and ecological crisis we are facing.
It should not be acceptable to build large numbers of homes using standards that will lock residents into high energy and water consumption, generate unnecessary waste and require expensive retrofitting in the future.
Every new home should be designed for the future from the outset.
At an absolute minimum, new housing should aim to be:
• Net-zero operational carbon, with exceptionally high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
• Powered by renewable energy, with on-site generation such as solar as standard and wind wherever technically feasible.
• Designed to minimise or eradicate household energy bills, rather than leaving residents exposed to permanently high energy costs.
• Water efficient, incorporating rainwater capture and reuse wherever appropriate and sustainable drainage systems.
• Zero or Low-waste, both in construction and throughout the lifetime of the home.
• Prepared for a changing climate, including overheating, extreme temperatures, drought and increased rainfall.
• Designed for sustainable heating and cooling, avoiding the need for future expensive retrofits.
• Built around access to nature, green space, walking and cycling, rather than creating communities dependent on private cars.
• Designed to support healthy communities, with access to green space, recreation, services and opportunities for social connection.
If housing really is required at this scale, we should be building homes that are fit for the next century, not homes that will need to be upgraded, insulated, decarbonised and adapted at enormous cost within a few decades.
There is also an issue of intergenerational fairness. If we build millions of pounds' worth of infrastructure today while locking future residents into high energy consumption, poor climate resilience and environmental damage, we are effectively passing the cost of today's decisions to tomorrow's population.
Anything less than genuinely sustainable, climate-resilient housing at this scale would be a failure of long-term planning.
We have the knowledge and technology to build homes that use dramatically less energy, generate renewable energy, capture and manage water, minimise waste and provide healthier environments for the people who live in them.
If the Council believes this scale of housing development is genuinely unavoidable, then it should demand the very highest standards from every home built.
We should not accept a choice between providing homes and protecting the planet. We need to provide homes in a way that protects the conditions necessary for humanity to thrive.
Anything less risks showing disregard not only for the environment, but for the people and future generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.
Conclusion
I recognise the need for homes and for communities to grow. But genuine sustainability means asking how much development we actually need, where it should go, and what we are prepared to destroy in order to provide it.
We cannot solve one problem by creating several others.
Destroying functioning natural environments has consequences for wildlife, for climate resilience, for flood risk, for human wellbeing and ultimately for the resilience of human society itself.
Once biodiversity, mature habitats and natural carbon stores have been destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated elsewhere at the stroke of a planning pen.
Nature is not a temporary land use. Biodiversity is not replaceable infrastructure. Green space is not an optional extra. Natural carbon stores should not be treated as development opportunities.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise previously developed and suitable brownfield land, make full use of existing housing stock, protect green space and natural carbon stores, avoid irreplaceable habitats, maintain ecological connectivity and direct development towards locations where it can genuinely be accommodated sustainably.
Most importantly, the plan should leave future generations with an environment capable of supporting them.

I am writing to respond to the consultation on the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for the future and that people need homes, jobs, infrastructure and thriving communities. However, I am deeply concerned that the scale and location of future development could cause irreversible damage to the natural environment on which those communities depend.
The Local Plan must therefore put climate resilience, biodiversity, protection of natural carbon stores, sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations at its heart.
Climate change and natural carbon stores
Climate change must be a fundamental consideration throughout the planning process.
We should be protecting and increasing our natural capacity to store carbon, not destroying it. This is particularly important for peatlands, which are significant natural carbon stores as well as valuable habitats and natural flood-management systems.
There is an important contradiction that the Local Plan should address. Government is encouraging farmers and landowners to protect and restore peatlands, keep them wet and explore forms of wetter agriculture such as paludiculture because of the benefits they provide for carbon storage, biodiversity and climate resilience.
Why would we spend public money encouraging landowners to protect and restore peatlands while allowing the planning system to destroy those same natural carbon stores through development?
We are in a climate crisis. The planning system should be helping to keep carbon in the ground, not creating circumstances in which it is released.
The Local Plan should therefore establish a strong presumption against development on peatlands and other significant natural carbon stores. Land should be assessed not simply according to whether it is technically developable, but according to the carbon, biodiversity, water-management and wider ecosystem services that would be lost if it were developed.
At a time when we are asking landowners to help us keep carbon in the ground, we should not be asking the planning system to release it.
Biodiversity and the need for space for nature
The importance of reversing biodiversity loss cannot be overstated.
Human beings and human society are entirely dependent on functioning natural systems. We rely on nature for food, clean water, clean air, pollination, healthy soils, carbon storage, flood regulation and countless other essential services.
The continued loss and fragmentation of biodiversity is therefore not simply a problem for wildlife. Ultimately, it threatens human wellbeing and the resilience of human society.
We cannot continue converting natural environments to serve our immediate needs while assuming that the natural systems on which we depend will somehow continue to function.
Nature needs space.
Protecting a small number of isolated nature reserves is not enough. Wildlife needs connected habitats, ecological corridors, buffer areas and sufficient space for healthy and resilient populations.
The Local Plan should make the protection and recovery of biodiversity a fundamental principle of spatial planning.
Existing nature cannot simply be replaced
The Local Plan should recognise that existing habitats and natural features cannot simply be recreated elsewhere once they have been destroyed.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting an existing functioning ecosystem and attempting to create a replacement habitat somewhere else after development has destroyed it.
A newly created habitat cannot immediately replace an established woodland, wetland, peatland, meadow or other mature habitat with its complex relationships between plants, animals, fungi, soils and microorganisms.
When natural land is developed, the consequences are immediate. Living organisms are displaced or killed, their homes are destroyed and established ecological relationships are broken. Thousands of individual plants and animals may be affected, along with the countless organisms in the soil and wider ecosystem that are rarely even considered.
At the same time, society loses the benefits these ecosystems provide — carbon storage, flood regulation, water management, pollination, soil health, air quality, recreation, cooling, mental wellbeing and opportunities to experience nature.
It therefore makes little sense to destroy functioning natural systems and then spend considerable amounts of money attempting to recreate some of their functions elsewhere.
Where valuable nature already exists, protecting it is far better than destroying it and attempting to recreate it somewhere else.
The Local Plan should adopt the principle of avoidance before mitigation and compensation. Development should first be directed away from areas of significant ecological and environmental value, rather than assuming environmental damage can subsequently be repaired.
Housing need and the use of existing land and homes
I fully recognise that people need homes and that Cheshire East has a responsibility to provide sufficient good-quality, genuinely affordable housing.
However, addressing housing need should not simply mean continually releasing more land for development, particularly greenfield land.
Before concluding that large amounts of additional land are required, the Council should thoroughly examine whether we are making proper use of the homes, buildings and previously developed land that already exist.
There are properties that remain empty for prolonged periods, as well as homes that can be held primarily as investment assets rather than being occupied by people who genuinely need somewhere to live. Large corporations, investment interests and property owners can hold housing as financial assets while people struggle to find affordable homes.
This raises an important question about what we actually mean when we describe the situation as a housing crisis.
We should not automatically assume that the only solution is to build more and more homes on undeveloped land.
The Council should investigate the scale and nature of empty homes, long-term vacant properties, second homes and housing held primarily as investment assets, and consider what measures could bring suitable existing properties back into use.
Where appropriate, the Council should also consider whether publicly owned housing, including housing owned or acquired by the Council, could play a greater role in ensuring that existing housing stock is available to people who genuinely need homes.
People need homes. They do not necessarily need more land converted into property assets.
It is not environmentally sustainable to destroy valuable countryside, green space, wildlife habitat and natural carbon stores to build additional property while suitable existing homes remain empty or are primarily treated as financial assets.
Brownfield land before greenfield land
I believe the Council should adopt a clear principle that greenfield land should not be released for development until suitable brownfield opportunities have been thoroughly identified, assessed and considered.
The Council should maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of previously developed land and establish how much housing and other development can realistically be accommodated on suitable brownfield sites.
Greenfield land should not be treated simply as undeveloped land waiting for a future use. It may already be providing essential services to people and supporting complex communities of living organisms.
Particularly where greenfield land has ecological, environmental, landscape, recreational or climate benefits, these benefits should be fully recognised before any decision is made to develop it.
Green Belt and the countryside
I support the continued protection of Green Belt land and believe the Local Plan should properly recognise all of its purposes, including safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Open countryside can also provide essential ecological connectivity between areas of high biodiversity.
Where land performs this function, it should not simply be reclassified as “Grey Belt” in order to facilitate development. The wider environmental role of land should be considered rather than looking only at whether it is technically developable.
Protection of wildlife sites and ecological connectivity
All wildlife sites should be properly protected, whether they are locally designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites or nationally designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protection should also consider land surrounding important wildlife sites.
Adjacent land can provide important buffer areas, wildlife corridors and alternative habitat, helping ecosystems remain resilient to pressures such as extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
Cheshire East should not become a collection of isolated wildlife sites surrounded by development, with insufficient space or connectivity for wildlife to move and thrive.
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
The new Local Plan should be closely aligned with Cheshire East's Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Nature recovery needs to be considered at a landscape scale. Protecting individual sites is not enough if wildlife cannot move between them or if surrounding habitats are continually lost to development.
The Local Plan should identify and protect ecological corridors and opportunities for habitat restoration, creating a connected network in which wildlife can survive and recover.
Green space and human wellbeing
Natural green spaces, particularly those close to existing urban areas, have enormous value for both wildlife and people.
They provide opportunities for recreation, exercise and contact with nature and contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. They also provide valuable ecosystem services including cooling, carbon storage, water management and flood mitigation.
These benefits should be recognised as essential infrastructure, rather than being treated as a luxury or something that can be provided only after other development needs have been met.
Supporting housing must not come at the cost of nature and green space and the inordinate number of benefits they provide.
Flooding and climate resilience
Avoiding development in areas at risk of flooding should be an important consideration when determining where development should take place.
With climate change increasing the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, the Council should take a long-term approach to flood risk.
Development should not increase flood risk for existing communities, and the natural flood-management functions provided by wetlands, peatlands, open land and other natural habitats should be protected.
The scale of housing growth
Finally, I ask the Council to critically examine the proposed level of housing growth and the evidence supporting it.
The proposed 146% increase in housing raises serious questions about whether this level of growth is genuinely sustainable in the context of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, infrastructure pressures, flooding and the need to protect our remaining natural environments.
The Council should challenge whether such a substantial increase is appropriate and sustainable, rather than simply treating the housing requirement as a number that must be accommodated regardless of its environmental consequences.
The evidence and sustainability assessments underpinning the Local Plan should demonstrate that the proposed scale and distribution of development are compatible with Cheshire East's climate, biodiversity and environmental objectives.
If this scale of housing is genuinely unavoidable
If the Council concludes that housing must be provided at anything approaching the proposed scale, then the standard of that development must reflect the climate and ecological crisis we are facing.
It should not be acceptable to build large numbers of homes using standards that will lock residents into high energy and water consumption, generate unnecessary waste and require expensive retrofitting in the future.
Every new home should be designed for the future from the outset.
At an absolute minimum, new housing should aim to be:
• Net-zero operational carbon, with exceptionally high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
• Powered by renewable energy, with on-site generation such as solar as standard and wind wherever technically feasible.
• Designed to minimise or eradicate household energy bills, rather than leaving residents exposed to permanently high energy costs.
• Water efficient, incorporating rainwater capture and reuse wherever appropriate and sustainable drainage systems.
• Zero or Low-waste, both in construction and throughout the lifetime of the home.
• Prepared for a changing climate, including overheating, extreme temperatures, drought and increased rainfall.
• Designed for sustainable heating and cooling, avoiding the need for future expensive retrofits.
• Built around access to nature, green space, walking and cycling, rather than creating communities dependent on private cars.
• Designed to support healthy communities, with access to green space, recreation, services and opportunities for social connection.
If housing really is required at this scale, we should be building homes that are fit for the next century, not homes that will need to be upgraded, insulated, decarbonised and adapted at enormous cost within a few decades.
There is also an issue of intergenerational fairness. If we build millions of pounds' worth of infrastructure today while locking future residents into high energy consumption, poor climate resilience and environmental damage, we are effectively passing the cost of today's decisions to tomorrow's population.
Anything less than genuinely sustainable, climate-resilient housing at this scale would be a failure of long-term planning.
We have the knowledge and technology to build homes that use dramatically less energy, generate renewable energy, capture and manage water, minimise waste and provide healthier environments for the people who live in them.
If the Council believes this scale of housing development is genuinely unavoidable, then it should demand the very highest standards from every home built.
We should not accept a choice between providing homes and protecting the planet. We need to provide homes in a way that protects the conditions necessary for humanity to thrive.
Anything less risks showing disregard not only for the environment, but for the people and future generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.
Conclusion
I recognise the need for homes and for communities to grow. But genuine sustainability means asking how much development we actually need, where it should go, and what we are prepared to destroy in order to provide it.
We cannot solve one problem by creating several others.
Destroying functioning natural environments has consequences for wildlife, for climate resilience, for flood risk, for human wellbeing and ultimately for the resilience of human society itself.
Once biodiversity, mature habitats and natural carbon stores have been destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated elsewhere at the stroke of a planning pen.
Nature is not a temporary land use. Biodiversity is not replaceable infrastructure. Green space is not an optional extra. Natural carbon stores should not be treated as development opportunities.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise previously developed and suitable brownfield land, make full use of existing housing stock, protect green space and natural carbon stores, avoid irreplaceable habitats, maintain ecological connectivity and direct development towards locations where it can genuinely be accommodated sustainably.
Most importantly, the plan should leave future generations with an environment capable of supporting them.

I am writing to respond to the consultation on the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I recognise that Cheshire East needs to plan for the future and that people need homes, jobs, infrastructure and thriving communities. However, I am deeply concerned that the scale and location of future development could cause irreversible damage to the natural environment on which those communities depend.
The Local Plan must therefore put climate resilience, biodiversity, protection of natural carbon stores, sustainable development and the wellbeing of future generations at its heart.
Climate change and natural carbon stores
Climate change must be a fundamental consideration throughout the planning process.
We should be protecting and increasing our natural capacity to store carbon, not destroying it. This is particularly important for peatlands, which are significant natural carbon stores as well as valuable habitats and natural flood-management systems.
There is an important contradiction that the Local Plan should address. Government is encouraging farmers and landowners to protect and restore peatlands, keep them wet and explore forms of wetter agriculture such as paludiculture because of the benefits they provide for carbon storage, biodiversity and climate resilience.
Why would we spend public money encouraging landowners to protect and restore peatlands while allowing the planning system to destroy those same natural carbon stores through development?
We are in a climate crisis. The planning system should be helping to keep carbon in the ground, not creating circumstances in which it is released.
The Local Plan should therefore establish a strong presumption against development on peatlands and other significant natural carbon stores. Land should be assessed not simply according to whether it is technically developable, but according to the carbon, biodiversity, water-management and wider ecosystem services that would be lost if it were developed.
At a time when we are asking landowners to help us keep carbon in the ground, we should not be asking the planning system to release it.
Biodiversity and the need for space for nature
The importance of reversing biodiversity loss cannot be overstated.
Human beings and human society are entirely dependent on functioning natural systems. We rely on nature for food, clean water, clean air, pollination, healthy soils, carbon storage, flood regulation and countless other essential services.
The continued loss and fragmentation of biodiversity is therefore not simply a problem for wildlife. Ultimately, it threatens human wellbeing and the resilience of human society.
We cannot continue converting natural environments to serve our immediate needs while assuming that the natural systems on which we depend will somehow continue to function.
Nature needs space.
Protecting a small number of isolated nature reserves is not enough. Wildlife needs connected habitats, ecological corridors, buffer areas and sufficient space for healthy and resilient populations.
The Local Plan should make the protection and recovery of biodiversity a fundamental principle of spatial planning.
Existing nature cannot simply be replaced
The Local Plan should recognise that existing habitats and natural features cannot simply be recreated elsewhere once they have been destroyed.
There is a fundamental difference between protecting an existing functioning ecosystem and attempting to create a replacement habitat somewhere else after development has destroyed it.
A newly created habitat cannot immediately replace an established woodland, wetland, peatland, meadow or other mature habitat with its complex relationships between plants, animals, fungi, soils and microorganisms.
When natural land is developed, the consequences are immediate. Living organisms are displaced or killed, their homes are destroyed and established ecological relationships are broken. Thousands of individual plants and animals may be affected, along with the countless organisms in the soil and wider ecosystem that are rarely even considered.
At the same time, society loses the benefits these ecosystems provide — carbon storage, flood regulation, water management, pollination, soil health, air quality, recreation, cooling, mental wellbeing and opportunities to experience nature.
It therefore makes little sense to destroy functioning natural systems and then spend considerable amounts of money attempting to recreate some of their functions elsewhere.
Where valuable nature already exists, protecting it is far better than destroying it and attempting to recreate it somewhere else.
The Local Plan should adopt the principle of avoidance before mitigation and compensation. Development should first be directed away from areas of significant ecological and environmental value, rather than assuming environmental damage can subsequently be repaired.
Housing need and the use of existing land and homes
I fully recognise that people need homes and that Cheshire East has a responsibility to provide sufficient good-quality, genuinely affordable housing.
However, addressing housing need should not simply mean continually releasing more land for development, particularly greenfield land.
Before concluding that large amounts of additional land are required, the Council should thoroughly examine whether we are making proper use of the homes, buildings and previously developed land that already exist.
There are properties that remain empty for prolonged periods, as well as homes that can be held primarily as investment assets rather than being occupied by people who genuinely need somewhere to live. Large corporations, investment interests and property owners can hold housing as financial assets while people struggle to find affordable homes.
This raises an important question about what we actually mean when we describe the situation as a housing crisis.
We should not automatically assume that the only solution is to build more and more homes on undeveloped land.
The Council should investigate the scale and nature of empty homes, long-term vacant properties, second homes and housing held primarily as investment assets, and consider what measures could bring suitable existing properties back into use.
Where appropriate, the Council should also consider whether publicly owned housing, including housing owned or acquired by the Council, could play a greater role in ensuring that existing housing stock is available to people who genuinely need homes.
People need homes. They do not necessarily need more land converted into property assets.
It is not environmentally sustainable to destroy valuable countryside, green space, wildlife habitat and natural carbon stores to build additional property while suitable existing homes remain empty or are primarily treated as financial assets.
Brownfield land before greenfield land
I believe the Council should adopt a clear principle that greenfield land should not be released for development until suitable brownfield opportunities have been thoroughly identified, assessed and considered.
The Council should maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of previously developed land and establish how much housing and other development can realistically be accommodated on suitable brownfield sites.
Greenfield land should not be treated simply as undeveloped land waiting for a future use. It may already be providing essential services to people and supporting complex communities of living organisms.
Particularly where greenfield land has ecological, environmental, landscape, recreational or climate benefits, these benefits should be fully recognised before any decision is made to develop it.
Green Belt and the countryside
I support the continued protection of Green Belt land and believe the Local Plan should properly recognise all of its purposes, including safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Open countryside can also provide essential ecological connectivity between areas of high biodiversity.
Where land performs this function, it should not simply be reclassified as “Grey Belt” in order to facilitate development. The wider environmental role of land should be considered rather than looking only at whether it is technically developable.
Protection of wildlife sites and ecological connectivity
All wildlife sites should be properly protected, whether they are locally designated sites such as Local Wildlife Sites or nationally designated sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protection should also consider land surrounding important wildlife sites.
Adjacent land can provide important buffer areas, wildlife corridors and alternative habitat, helping ecosystems remain resilient to pressures such as extreme weather, flooding and wildfire.
Cheshire East should not become a collection of isolated wildlife sites surrounded by development, with insufficient space or connectivity for wildlife to move and thrive.
Local Nature Recovery Strategy
The new Local Plan should be closely aligned with Cheshire East's Local Nature Recovery Strategy.
Nature recovery needs to be considered at a landscape scale. Protecting individual sites is not enough if wildlife cannot move between them or if surrounding habitats are continually lost to development.
The Local Plan should identify and protect ecological corridors and opportunities for habitat restoration, creating a connected network in which wildlife can survive and recover.
Green space and human wellbeing
Natural green spaces, particularly those close to existing urban areas, have enormous value for both wildlife and people.
They provide opportunities for recreation, exercise and contact with nature and contribute to physical and mental wellbeing. They also provide valuable ecosystem services including cooling, carbon storage, water management and flood mitigation.
These benefits should be recognised as essential infrastructure, rather than being treated as a luxury or something that can be provided only after other development needs have been met.
Supporting housing must not come at the cost of nature and green space and the inordinate number of benefits they provide.
Flooding and climate resilience
Avoiding development in areas at risk of flooding should be an important consideration when determining where development should take place.
With climate change increasing the likelihood and severity of extreme weather events, the Council should take a long-term approach to flood risk.
Development should not increase flood risk for existing communities, and the natural flood-management functions provided by wetlands, peatlands, open land and other natural habitats should be protected.
The scale of housing growth
Finally, I ask the Council to critically examine the proposed level of housing growth and the evidence supporting it.
The proposed 146% increase in housing raises serious questions about whether this level of growth is genuinely sustainable in the context of the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, infrastructure pressures, flooding and the need to protect our remaining natural environments.
The Council should challenge whether such a substantial increase is appropriate and sustainable, rather than simply treating the housing requirement as a number that must be accommodated regardless of its environmental consequences.
The evidence and sustainability assessments underpinning the Local Plan should demonstrate that the proposed scale and distribution of development are compatible with Cheshire East's climate, biodiversity and environmental objectives.
If this scale of housing is genuinely unavoidable
If the Council concludes that housing must be provided at anything approaching the proposed scale, then the standard of that development must reflect the climate and ecological crisis we are facing.
It should not be acceptable to build large numbers of homes using standards that will lock residents into high energy and water consumption, generate unnecessary waste and require expensive retrofitting in the future.
Every new home should be designed for the future from the outset.
At an absolute minimum, new housing should aim to be:
• Net-zero operational carbon, with exceptionally high levels of energy efficiency and insulation.
• Powered by renewable energy, with on-site generation such as solar as standard and wind wherever technically feasible.
• Designed to minimise or eradicate household energy bills, rather than leaving residents exposed to permanently high energy costs.
• Water efficient, incorporating rainwater capture and reuse wherever appropriate and sustainable drainage systems.
• Zero or Low-waste, both in construction and throughout the lifetime of the home.
• Prepared for a changing climate, including overheating, extreme temperatures, drought and increased rainfall.
• Designed for sustainable heating and cooling, avoiding the need for future expensive retrofits.
• Built around access to nature, green space, walking and cycling, rather than creating communities dependent on private cars.
• Designed to support healthy communities, with access to green space, recreation, services and opportunities for social connection.
If housing really is required at this scale, we should be building homes that are fit for the next century, not homes that will need to be upgraded, insulated, decarbonised and adapted at enormous cost within a few decades.
There is also an issue of intergenerational fairness. If we build millions of pounds' worth of infrastructure today while locking future residents into high energy consumption, poor climate resilience and environmental damage, we are effectively passing the cost of today's decisions to tomorrow's population.
Anything less than genuinely sustainable, climate-resilient housing at this scale would be a failure of long-term planning.
We have the knowledge and technology to build homes that use dramatically less energy, generate renewable energy, capture and manage water, minimise waste and provide healthier environments for the people who live in them.
If the Council believes this scale of housing development is genuinely unavoidable, then it should demand the very highest standards from every home built.
We should not accept a choice between providing homes and protecting the planet. We need to provide homes in a way that protects the conditions necessary for humanity to thrive.
Anything less risks showing disregard not only for the environment, but for the people and future generations who will inherit the consequences of the decisions we make today.
Conclusion
I recognise the need for homes and for communities to grow. But genuine sustainability means asking how much development we actually need, where it should go, and what we are prepared to destroy in order to provide it.
We cannot solve one problem by creating several others.
Destroying functioning natural environments has consequences for wildlife, for climate resilience, for flood risk, for human wellbeing and ultimately for the resilience of human society itself.
Once biodiversity, mature habitats and natural carbon stores have been destroyed, they cannot simply be recreated elsewhere at the stroke of a planning pen.
Nature is not a temporary land use. Biodiversity is not replaceable infrastructure. Green space is not an optional extra. Natural carbon stores should not be treated as development opportunities.
The Local Plan should therefore prioritise previously developed and suitable brownfield land, make full use of existing housing stock, protect green space and natural carbon stores, avoid irreplaceable habitats, maintain ecological connectivity and direct development towards locations where it can genuinely be accommodated sustainably.
Most importantly, the plan should leave future generations with an environment capable of supporting them.