Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1663

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

It would be interesting to be informed on what criteria unsuitability to develop a site are based?

Given a list of potential sites enables a priority order to be put in place with brownfield first, grey second and green belt only included when housing targets cannot be met. Increasing housing densities to make the most efficient use of land is important to any site selection process. For all needs to develop, ARUP assessments appear to work well.

Comment

Representation ID: 1664

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

In general the intentions to protect green belt land from unnecessary development are well covered by the current policies in place. It is strict practice that is lacking leading to decisions made often being subjective. Current strong urban edges should not be crossed when opportunities to build exist within the settlement edges. An example is Moor Lane in Wilmslow: To the north is open agricultural land and a very important regeneration of a peat bog underway. These are very special circumstances acting against development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1665

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

It is important to local identity that green gaps are preserved. As an example, it is a matter of concern that the gap between Manchester/Stockport and North CEC is now occupied by the A555 Airport relief road. Much of the land between Wilmslow and the airport could be grey. Protection of the Bollin Valley needs to provide very special circumstances.

Comment

Representation ID: 1666

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

The use of terms like "Principal Towns in hierarchy order need to be removed. The Green Belt serves to maintain a gap between all types of settlements, not just towns. This was recently accepted by an appeals inspector in upholding the CEC refusal for housing between Wilmslow and Alderley Edge.

Comment

Representation ID: 1668

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

At RoW we recall the inspector overseeing the Local Plan insisted in a 125% increase above the CEC need in the number of houses to be built 2010 to 2030. The biggest increase across the borough. We think this needs to be taken into account this time round. For Wilmslow, approved allocated sites remain undelivered and will provide circa 2000 homes plus an enterprise zone. This will represent a fair contribution to the overall distribution.

Comment

Representation ID: 1669

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

A focus upon development within settlements is to be applauded. Increase in densities, flats etc will enrich centres. Jobs within living spaces is to be encouraged. Regeneration too. A lack of parking to enable this needs to be addressed in advance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1670

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

In general the current policies are serving their purpose. Nonetheless, adjacent housing estates are approved. Design needs to complement the setting and sustainability is often an issue in terms of total reliance upon private cars. Transport issues are occuring too often for the elderley and those with needs. The creation of brown curtilage with intent to build homes is to be discouraged - stables and equestrian centres etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 1671

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

Paragraph 5.31 is key. Whilst NPs identify needs, quantifying each need is important. With Wilmslow in mind it is clear that the number of 4 and 5 bedroom houses approved has not addressed the identified needs. LP allocated sites have produced 30% affordables but few bungalows. It is the approval of non allocated smaller sites that has produced an overload of bigger homes. Recent planning applications are including 6 bedroom homes. Developers need to justify this move in their Design Access Statements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1672

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

At RoW we are very supportive of any changes to policy that should bring about an increase in the number of affordable homes. We are not supportive of exporting affordable homes away from medium or large sites. We are not supportive of edge of settlement affordable homes which are vehicle dependent. Where land is expensive within settlements then funding via sources like s106 needs to be created via housing subsidies. Affluent settlements need work people in order to function efficiently both in social and environmental terms.

Comment

Representation ID: 1673

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Residents of Wilmslow

Paragraphs 5.36 and 5.37 are key. Hard data is key too. 5.38 is to be challenged if this brings inequalities.