Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 5321

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Michael Burdekin

1. Paragraph 2.1 – Neighbourhood Plans. In paragraph 2.1 the consultation document includes the statement – “the local plan sits alongside the National Planning Policy Framework and neighbourhood plans to provide the planning policy framework for making decisions on planning applications and in many ways will act as an investment framework for the borough.” There is virtually no reference elsewhere in the document to Neighbourhood Plans and this is a serious omission as they provide an essential statement of local opinion.

Comment

Representation ID: 5322

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Michael Burdekin

2. Paragraphs 5.8 to 5.12 and 6.51 / 6.52 – Identifying and assessing sites. It is accepted that Government policy requires a significant increase in housing and Cheshire East does not currently have sufficient sites to provide a five year housing supply. However, the present system of relying predominantly on submissions of sites by developers and owners is both inefficient and divisive. Government has now provided a recommended standard method for calculating housing needs as a starting point for assessing site requirements. In my view it would be far better for Cheshire East Council strategic planning department to apply this standard method of housing needs assessment initially to each sub area in the Borough. There should then be discussions with representatives of each sub area (Town or Parish Councils) to review whether there is a sufficient number of suitable sites available from the call for sites, and where are the most suitable locations within their area to meet the initial estimate. This should take full account of the policies and recommendations of any Neighbourhood Plans that exist for that area. If there is an insufficient number of suitable sites identified in this way, the strategic planning department should review the area to identify where might be the most suitable locations and then make a confidential enquiry as to whether the owners would be prepared to make the required areas available. If necessary, an adjustment of numbers between areas could then be considered. In this way, development would be focussed to the required amount in the most suitable locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 5323

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Michael Burdekin

3. Paragraphs 5.15 to 5.18 – Green Belt – Paragraph 5.16 includes the statement “Green Belt boundaries can only be changed where development around stations is proposed or where exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere. If such circumstances are identified, priority should be given to developing previously developed (brownfield) land and suitable grey belt sites.” Paragraph GB3(2) of the latest NPPF includes the statement that “Exceptional circumstances in this context include a local planning authority being unable to meet its identified need for development in full, having examined all other reasonable options for doing so”. In the new local plan strict adherence must be enforced to the ‘Golden Rules’ set out in paragraph GB8 of the latest NPPF.
The introduction of ‘grey belt’ in the latest editions of the National Planning Policy Framework leaves open significant arbitrary judgement of the phrase “does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in policy GB2 of the NPPF.”
Paragraph 5.18 of the consultation document includes the statement that “A borough-wide Green Belt assessment is being undertaken to identify grey belt land and help inform any future decisions on potential Green Belt release”. This assessment should include land designated in the current local plan as safeguarded which should only be released if no other suitable grey belt land is identified in the same area.

Comment

Representation ID: 5324

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Michael Burdekin

4. Paragraphs 5.20 to 5.23 – Settlement hierarchy. The current local plan adopts the strategy of dividing locality considerations into tiers of principal towns, key service areas, local service areas and rural communities, with more development concentrated towards the higher end of these tiers. I agree that the present distribution of communities into these tiers is sensible and should be retained. However, I note that at paragraph 6.19 reference is made specifically to the towns of Bollington and Handforth as having populations of 7000 to 8000. In the current local plan Bollington is treated as a local service centre and Handforth as a key service centre. If there is any intention to change the designation of Bollington to become a key service centre, there must be provision for substantial investment in its infrastructure, as in the period of the current plan there has been virtually none. Bollington is a unique historic town in the borough but is in severe need of major improvements to its road system (particularly the B5090) and support for employment and retail businesses. The scheme ‘Reclaiming the Road’ produced by Civic Engineers after the 2018 version of the Neighbourhood Plan would provide a basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 5325

Received: 29/08/2026

Respondent: Michael Burdekin

5. Paragraphs 5.91 to 5.93, 5.110 and 5.112. Transport and Infrastructure. Paragraph 5.91 states that “The Local Plan will form part of a wider framework of transport policies and strategies operating at national, regional, borough and local levels.” Paragraph 5.92 includes the statement that “Identifying the infrastructure needed to support planned growth is a key requirement of the new Local Plan. Paragraph 5.93 states that “The Local Plan must also establish local parking standards that reflect its transport vision. More generally, it must identify infrastructure requirements and the contributions that new development will be expected to make towards delivering both on-site and off-site infrastructure.” Paragraph 5.110 includes the statement “Creating safe and secure places is essential to sustainable communities.” These requirements cannot be achieved without a fully integrated relationship between Cheshire East Planning Department and Cheshire East Highways. At present Cheshire East Highways operates largely as an autonomous organisation applying rigid rules and regulations dominated by the objective of reduction of fatal accidents and offers little or no constructive help to communities wishing to change the perception of unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The Council’s Local Transport Plan seeks to promote Active Travel and paragraph 5.112 of the consultation document includes the statement “The Local Plan will need to encourage active travel both in new developments and existing areas, helping to reduce congestion and emissions while improving physical and mental wellbeing.” At the present time Cheshire East Highways presents a totally negative response to suggestions for improvements and there needs a complete change of attitude to find ways of implementing the objectives of the local plan quoted in the paragraphs above.