Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Mr Richard McCarthy search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
Economic growth
Representation ID: 6959
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Spatial development strategy
Representation ID: 6960
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Supplementary planning documents
Representation ID: 6961
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
National decision making policies
Representation ID: 6962
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Strategic environmental assessment
Representation ID: 6963
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
4 Baseline information and spatial portrait
Representation ID: 6964
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Noted
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Cheshire East in a national context
Representation ID: 6965
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Noted
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Connectivity
Representation ID: 6966
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
The respondent argues that Cheshire East’s description of transport and connectivity is overly focused on private car travel and long-distance connections, overlooking the needs of many residents who rely on public transport. They criticise the limited recognition of the borough’s railway network, noting that emphasis is placed on London connections rather than the wider network of local stations. The absence of discussion on bus services, bus stations and links to neighbouring towns is highlighted as a significant omission. While acknowledging the importance of Manchester Airport, the response contends that Cheshire East appears more concerned with external connectivity than with improving everyday travel within the borough itself.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Local plan period
Representation ID: 6967
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
Noted.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Creating a vision and objectives
Representation ID: 6968
Received: 01/10/2026
Respondent: Mr Richard McCarthy
The respondent argues that Cheshire East’s Local Plan vision must be grounded in the realities of an escalating climate crisis and its likely impacts, including increased food insecurity, resource shortages and rising costs. They call for stronger adaptation measures, including peatland restoration, wildfire prevention, flood resilience and preparation for extreme heat. The response highlights local examples of infrastructure vulnerability, such as heat-related water pipe failures, and questions whether the Council has adequately assessed such risks. It also advocates working with landowners and water companies to create additional water bodies that could store water during droughts while providing flood attenuation during periods of heavy rainfall, strengthening long-term climate resilience.
Scoping Consultation Introduction
Understood
Purpose of the Scoping Consultation
Initial answers:
ATC understands the opportunity that the Scoping Consultation provides. We hope that over the course of the new Local Plan, Cheshire East Council (CEC) will hold itself and any and all Developers to the Local Plan in a more obvious, apparent and open way at all times than has been the case for some of Alsager’s experiences with the Local Plan to 2030.
I understand the need for more housing, and the need for good planning, and good enforcement of planning policies in order to create good physical environments in order for Cheshire East’s communities to have the best chances to be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. However, this scoping exercise seems to be treating the next 19 years as a linear continuation of life as we know it, despite the fact that we are clearly moving into a very uncertain future, affected - as far forward in time as any human’s mental imagery can see - by greater and greater effects of the warmest and fastest warming Climate experienced by the planet in more than 1000 years, and the need to do our part to reduce that warming
In Britain, we are now a little more informed of the changes that await us, but that awareness is likely to jump up far more quickly over the next year in particular. I hope that the Local plan is being, and will be prepared in readiness for this reality.
Thus I suggest that the Local plan should be preparing to build – in a low energy and low-carbon manner, homes that will be very energy efficient (including orientation for solar gain, and structure to maintain high summer sun shading etc), and which will contain elements to maximise their energy generation and use from solar panels and any other renewable technologies which may become more available.
At the same time, we should be looking to have communities which can minimise any need for day-to-day transportation – reducing greatly any need for private motor vehicles – which both consume large amounts of energy in their use (producing high emissions, if combustion powered, as well as other pollutants), and engender a huge amount of resources, energy and emissions in their very production; and yet stand unused for most owners, for over 90% of time.
Consultation Documents
Thank you for the online consultation. I do feel that physical documentation should also be available, but that only making them available 9am-5pm on weekdays in two towns is not enough. I’d humbly suggest that for future consultation, printed copies are also made available for viewing at each of Cheshire East’s 16 libraries – which will be far more accessible for most people (very important for repeat viewing – which is likely to be necessary for such a large consultation); which will also be available at weekends; and which will be able to provide a far more comfortable environment for most, than Council offices.
I’d also suggest that there is an advertising campaign both inside and outside each library, as well as being sent digitally to all town and parish councils for extended outreach to the community.
Finally, I’d suggest that this is a poorly chosen time for the initial consultation – during school, university and governmental summer holidays, when all sorts of people are striving to get away for holidays, and many of those working will be working extra both before and after their holidays to make space for that holiday. That and having space to enjoy the summer weather, gives little space to read through extensive documentation. Six weeks over this period seems to minimise chance of a coherent consultation for most of the general public. Finally, having the last day for submission of responses being a bank holiday seems to indicate a desire to put people off responding to the consultation
How to Respond
Obviously, this consultation via email. I am aware of others completing it via the comment buttons online, and understand the 100 word limit to be incredibly frustrating, and again, apparently designed to, quite literally, reduce responses.
2 New Local Plan
Thank you for the link to the new NPPF, which will be useful for many. I also welcome the link to neighbourhood plans.
The Map of progress of Neighbourhood Plans is intriguing, but not entirely clear –as it has no key. Clearly, there are differences between the various colourings of Towns and Parishes. It appears as though the colour coding is:
Inchworm – light green – e.g. Church Lawton - have a designated Neighbourhood Area
African violet (light purple) – e.g. Alsager - have a Made Plan (is this the one from the previous Local plan?)
Medium Purple (bluey purple) e.g. Cranage - have a neighbourhood Plan under independent examination?
Viridian (dirty green) – have a Regulation 14 Draft of their Neighbourhood Plan
Liserian Purple (pink) – e.g. Congleton, are in the process of having a referendum
Traditional Purple (vibrant purple) – are caught between a Made Plan and a referendum –is this because their area has changed? E.g one area is labelled both as Weston and Basford (Made Plan) and Weston ad Crewe (Referendum)?
Without a labelled key, and some description, most (if not all) of the public will be in the dark as to the meaning of the colour coding. Furthermore, we seem now to be almost at the point where “Made Plan” could relate to an up to date Made Neighbourhood Plan finished in 2026 and setting out ideas to 2040, or it could be the NP finished in 2017 setting out ideas until 2030. So it is very difficult for a resident to see what is still necessary for the NP in their area, and/or how long that might take to develop.
I have been very involved in Alsager’s Neighbourhood Plan which is almost complete. However, all I and the other individuals who have worked far harder than myself get to see or to show for that hard work at present is to see something that says we have a Made Plan from 2017.
It hardly instils a great desire to volunteer our time further.
Why Prepare a new Local plan?
I realise the need to update the Local plan. I strongly hope that the new Local Plan will now have more modern Waste Plan than a saved one from 2007 and a Minerals plan updated from 1999.
I also wonder why work for a new Local Plan wasn’t undertaken sooner. We have known since before the last Local Plan, that there had to be allocated sites for a 5 year housing plan in order to prevent developers from overriding important local planning concepts.
I do understand that until 2024 it seemed that CEC had more than enough housing available, but it could still have been perceived as being cautious – something that we would all like our Council to be, about our futures - to have started preparing the Local Plan ready for 2026 – so that 5 year planning ahead could have been maintained. However, I also understand some of the strictures that a lack of funding will have placed upon CEC It would almost be good to know if that was the reason rather than a lack of foresight..
As it is, as Cheshire Easts’ Local Plan does not extend beyond the next 4 (soon to be 3) years at present, and we seem to be at the mercy of developers.
Developing the New Local plan
The Local Plan Timetable seems clear. As above, I think that longer should have been given to the Scoping Consultation, and for it to have been at a different time of year. However, it seems that both of the next two consultations offer the opportunity of a better time of year, and, I hope, will be given a larger timeframe – perhaps from early spring until the Summer holiday period, to allow residents – many unfamiliar with consultations of any sort – a good opportunity to absorb documentation and to respond.
I’d further suggest that these consultations will be available in hardcopy in each library operated by Cheshire East Council, along with advertising both inside and outside of libraries; and advertising the online version at other EC facilities, to Town and Parish Councils for outreach, and of course, on general Cheshire East communications at the time.
3 Context for the New Local plan
I recognises and welcome that CEC are pointing out that a number of changes have been made to the National Planning policy Framework (NPPF).
However, I query the idea of continuing growth in a nation which already requires 2.5 Earths to meet its needs “sustainably”, and which has already disfigured its environment in the name of “economic growth”. This flies in the face of all sorts of reports over the Summer of crop shortfalls all over the World as a result of a Summer hugely affected by Climate Change. I would also point to reports such as the UK’s own Dept for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA’s) National Security Assessment on Global Ecosystems from January 2026, which points out that there are high chances that global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to result in “…crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states…”*, leading to a critical lack of food security for the UK, amongst many other problems.
Hence growth, in the UK, can never deliver “sustainable” development; unless that growth is accompanied by high rates of inflation, making things yet more expensive for the population of the UK, and so reducing our tendency and ability to buy and acquire goods that are unnecessary.
I would suggest that the Local Plan should improve and increase options for the poorer general public to low carbon facilities in areas such as housing, transport, education, medicine, production and recreation. At the same time, there should be bars to frequent and continuing access to high carbon facilities which are being enjoyed by wealthy strands of our society at the expense – from a climate perspective - of both the majority of the rest of the World, and of the majority of at least the poorer half of present society within Cheshire East.
This should mean, for example, that many people (those presently owning a car) will be less able to travel as easily in the future as they do at present (by not having full, single access to a private car), but could still travel in a more complicated, but more environmentally friendly way by bus or train or perhaps via a cooperatively owned vehicle (possibly EV). People could also be therefore more encouraged – where still capable - to walk and cycle for many of their journeys, rather than just the odd day out in the summer. Others might still be able to travel in the same way, but only at much higher financial cost, leading to them reducing their expenditure and environmental impacts in other areas.
This is the future that we should be planning for: not one of resource growth, but one of resource reduction. It could well be said that there will be an accompanying growth in Community and understanding, caused by a much greater sharing of engagement and equipment, and space - which I would hope that all councils and councillors would welcome. In that way, growth could be welcome and sustainable.
* Biodiversity loss impacts national security, p6 “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security” DEFRA HM Government, Jan 2026
Increase in Housing Requirements
Clearly, there is a requirement for many more affordable homes- most of which, I would suggest need to be social homes - in order to meet demand; in order to reduce future pressure for homebuilding via the Govt criteria; and in order to provide thousands of people with homes in which they can actually afford to live, without a huge, existential fear of not being able to afford a rent or a mortgage payment.
In turn, this will help our communities to be physically more healthy, by equipping residents far more securely against the Cost of Living Crisis – for example, allowing more parents the chance to eat the same meals as their children. Not just that, but this added existential family home security would radically improve the mental and emotional stability of our Communities, making them healthier and more settled to face the rigours of the 21st Century.
CEC faces the advantage and opportunity, that fewer homes were built in the past, when private developers have been allowed to build as they saw fit – leading us to have a plethora of 3 and 4-bedroom houses. We now have the opportunity to build a far greater proportion of truly affordable homes – socially rented homes – offering many lower paid individuals and families the opportunity to have a reasonable home.
I would like CEC to confidently assert that any and all developers will be held to all promises for inclusive social or “affordable building, by an insistence that they build the cheaper homes properties at the same time as building the more expensive homes. One can hope that this would avoid what seems to be a constant refrain from develpers toward the end of their building, that they “can’t afford” to build the lower cost homes.
I understand that changes have been made to consideration of the Green Belt, when it comes to planning.
Changes to Gypsy and Traveller Policy
Changes to Green Belt Policy and Brownfield Land
ATC notes that the NPPF states that changing Green belt boundaries may be valid if there is a shortfall after considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. We would call to Cheshire East’s attention, for example, to the report “Where and How to Build in Cheshire East”, which - although very generic - points to 25% of future housing to be coming from increased density of housing in towns and cities*. recognises that this is important to develop enough demand for affordable public transport.
Furthermore, Cheshire East’s number of Long Term Empty Homes rose substantially from 1797 in 2024 to 2200 in 2025. I don’t knw whether or not action on LTEH counts similarly to providing new homes? So a little information on that would be good to see for understanding our position in future consultations
I understand, though don’t necessarily agree with the new definitions of Green Belt land and Grey Belt land; and welcome the renewed commitment for developing Brownfield land before turning to Grey or Green Belt land.
Economic Growth
Alsager has previously been forced to suffer the installation of freight logistics, which - 6 years later - remain unused. We hope that installations for employment will be more realistic in future.
Spatial Development Strategy
Presumably CEC will, in future, as part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, produce information for the Spatial Development Strategy pertaining to Cheshire East’s area, rather than that of the whole combined authority ( as the wording seems to imply)?
Whilst again denying that growth is sustainable, I welcome the idea of major improvements to infrastructure – particularly if this is combined with a close working partnership with neighbouring authorities, as Alsager seems to suffer (as perhaps, other Towns and Parishes on the edge of the county do). We do know that we act as a Key Service Centre for other villages and towns, many of which are within the neighbouring Staffordshire Council’s borders. I think that Alsager Town Council would welcome the opportunity to better understand any relationship that gives Alsager with Staffordshire Council through agreements made with CEC.
Supplementary Planning Documents
Thank you for bringing this documentation to the fore and ensuring that it is once again highlighted to the public.
National Decision-Making Policies (NDMPs)
This section now seems to be irrelevant? As NDMPs seem to have been removed from the planning process, and are not mentioned in the new NPPF. However, clearly the new NPPF was only released during this consultation, so perhaps that is why NDMPs have been discussed.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
I can understand why Sustainability Appraisal has been removed from the Local Plan, as Local plans are intended to pursue economic growth, which cannot be sustainable in the present UK (see above comments).
Having stated this, I welcome the continued inclusion of:
an Equality Impact Assessment
a Habitats Regulations Assessment
a Strategic Environmental Assessment
and an assessment of the social and economic impacts that come with the environmental effects.
Although painstaking and time-consuming, the provision of such documentation is surely to assist all to understand the probable outcomes of developmental decisions which will have to be made, and which will affect us all. Undoubtedly discussion and argument about many future decisions will occur as people disagree with interpretations of the data. However, the provision of such reports and information is essential. It helps all those with stakes in the future of the county to argue from an equal footing with the same information – which, hopefully, we can be assured will be kept as accurate as possible.
Baseline Information and Spatial Portrait
Noted
Cheshire East in a National Context
Noted
Connectivity
This section highlights a lot of the difficulty faced by anybody planning to travel in Cheshire East other than in a private motor vehicle. It emphasises a possible conception of Cheshire East as a playground for those lucky enough to be in possession of wealth and income enough to both own, insure and still park a car, and young enough to still be able to drive it.
Clearly, Cheshire East thinks so little about the railway system that it isn’t mentioned that the 23 settlements in Cheshire East with a railway station are not really mentioned. However, the 3 stations with options for people to travel directly to London are. (People needing that information are actually also more likely to be amongst those able to afford their own private car.)
No mention is made at all of a bus network of any kind, despite it being so important to so many of the population. It doesn’t mention the 5 towns with bus stations, for example; and, of course, connectivity with other towns a little outside Cheshire East (other than Manchester) are not mentioned.
Finally, Manchester airport is also mentioned – which is an important connection route for many (But again, less than half the population – possibly the same half that owns cars and traves to London) on, perhaps up to 4 occasions throughout the year, compared to daily commutes.
It seems that Cheshire East is more concerned with connectivity to other places than within itself – despite information that we are the 16th largest regional council in Britain.
Economic Contribution
Cheshire East’s Diversity
Scope of the New Local plan
Local Plan Period
Noted.
Creating a Vision and Objectives
This vision must be based within an actual reality of an escalating Climate Crisis, which is not being handled well locally, nationally or internationally. We can therefore expect a World of huge change – especially in terms of prices as food and other shortages become ever more exacerbated. As such, CE needs to include plans for rewetting peat bogs (which should really be completed by 2045 if we admit – as we like to pretend to - that there is a Climate Emergency), how to protect areas from wildfire in Summers similar to, but more extreme than the one we have just experienced; and how to deal with flooding emergencies similar to, but more extreme than those we are likely to face over the next year.
Has Cheshire East looked at likely consequences of extreme heat? e.g. in Alsager recently waterpipes seem to have broken due to the heat and dryness of their surroundings shrinking the earth from supporting those pipes, which led to a break, and then a further washing away of the earth in that area.
Equally, are there plans to create more bodies of water in conjunction with landowners and water companies – which could serve both as source of water in dry summers, and catchmnt for downpours in wet Autumns and Winters?
Planning for Growth
Identifying and Assessing Sites
Hopefully there will be serious engagement between Cheshire East Council all Town and Parish Councils to discuss sites in detail.
For instance, the West Ward in Alsager has been over-developed in recent years, often with the wrong type of housing driven by profit margins rather than community need. Consequently, further development of Manor Farm or Close Lane raises serious issues about social and environmental impact.
At present, it feels as though we are effectively being urged not to comment in any detail (due to lack of time and information on site for this response) on present suggested sites. It is therefore hugely important that CE maintains the ability to say “No” to developers even after they may have put money into investigating and then promoting a site. ATC would also urge CE to use more local information to remove certain sites from the picture, in the interests of saving aggravation and worry for residents and money for all concerned.
Settlement Hierarchy
I would hope that Alsager, and other similar smaller towns across Cheshire which are Key Service Centres get to be treated as such. I urge CEC to bear in mind that since less than a third of the population live in the “large town” conurbations of Crewe and Macclesfield, more than to thirds don’t. So when cycling and bus and waste and all sorts of other strategies are mainly focussed on these towns, two thirds of the population lose out. E.g. recently towns were offered “free” bus travel on 4 days of the year – but only within the boundaries of the town itself. This might work well for large towns, such as Crewe and Macclesfield, which extend over miles, but not Key Service Centres, which are a little like larger towns split radially apart over a larger area. As such, Alsager and other Key Service Centres could have been offered free travel from and to other locations which they service. If that was considered to be too expensive for 4 days, then 1 day of proper coverage would have been far more effective, or useful, or delightful for the greater population, than 4 days where less than a mile of travel is free.
Public Safety
I think that the document leads us to see “personal” violence as being the key element of public safety, allowing other, far more dangerous and longer highlighted (for Alsager) issues, which could be construed as “public violence” – which led to more deaths and worse injuries each year, to slip by unmentioned.
These “public violences” are:
i) dangerous and illegal parking (double yellow lines and other dangerous spots) – which we are told by the police is ONLY the preserve of CEC. Furthermore, there is also poor parking – where drivers park on footpaths, protecting their own vehicles, and allowing other car drivers to continue to drive at higher speeds, whilst at the same time forcing pedestrians – particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users - into harm's way on the road itself. CEC could do something about this ahead of any directive by central government, but as yet, has not done so. Of course, as with personal violence, the effects of this are apparently minimal, because the result is that most sufferers - particularly pram-pushers and wheelchair users (as well as parent of small children, etc) end up just not going out on the pavements if they are forced to use them in a potentially dangerous way. They either stay in, or use a car. This is partly what has caused the huge problem - in Alsager and elsewhere - with getting children to primary schools in the morning.
ii) dangerous and illegal speeding, in and around the edges of Alsager – this is extenuated by poor speed management by CEC which has not kept pace with development around the edges of the town. (e.g. 60 mph speed limit on Linley Road between Crewe Road and the outskirts of town – right across the Sainsbury’s/Brunds Farm roundabout, and also on Hassall Road despite the hairpin bend just 50m after the National Speed Limit sign, and then just around the bend, the exit and particularly the entrance to Alsager Recycling Centre where there can often be a queue, as cars are suddenly slowed (completely correctly) to a maximum speed of 5pmh to turn into the Recycling Centre itself.
iii) an urban speed limit which effectively kills a quarter of the pedestrians involved in accidents, rather than a lower practicable speed limit which both drastically reduces the chance of death to 5% in the event of an accident, but also drastically reduces the likelihood of any type of accident taking place altogether. (The percentages of deaths rises quickly after 30mph, but actually considering policing speeding isn’t even considered until 36mph is exceeded – at which speed 50% of pedestrians are killed).
The urban speed limit also prevents the population from taking to the streets by bicycle in the greater numbers that ATC and CEC themselves would like to see – which would improve health both of new cyclists and pedestrians by allowing them to gain more invigorating exercise; but also for the rest of the population, by helping to reduce the main form of pollution that Alsager appears to suffer, which is particulates from transport.
The only plans suggested by CEC for cycle lanes have been impractically expensive – both in terms of cost, and in terms of lost green space and farmland. The solution put forward by ATC has been the use of cycle paths along present roads with a reduced speed limit – meeting both the requests of the population, of the UK Govt, and of CEC itself, on a vastly reduced cost of changing signage with very limited construction.
It would also help to reduce congestion which is also discussed in the Scoping Consultation.
i)and iii) also combine, creating the very often heard phrases in Alsager “…an accident waiting to happen” and “…something needs to be done about it BEFORE someone gets killed.”
This happens as motorists speed up across lengths of road which have been extensively parked – because only one car at a time can moe along the rod, and some drivers worry that a driver coming in the opposite direction will not be patient enough to wait until they have passed a long row of parked cars.
