Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 6351

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

The respondent supports a Local Plan end date of 2045, consistent with their previous Issues and Options representation. They note that the existing Local Plan Strategy planned for development needs to 2030 and safeguarded land to avoid further Green Belt boundary changes until 2045. They acknowledge that increased housing needs may now require additional Green Belt releases. They consider a 2045 end date would provide an appropriate 15-year period beyond the current plan, greater certainty during preparation and examination, and sufficient scope for longer-term infrastructure and strategic development. In the absence of a Spatial Development Strategy, they support planning to at least 2045.

Comment

Representation ID: 6353

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

The respondent considers the Local Plan should meet at least the applicable local housing need, currently identified as 2,530 dwellings per annum, while assessing whether a higher requirement is necessary to address affordable housing needs, economic growth and unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. They argue housing and employment strategies should align to avoid constraining economic growth or worsening affordability. The respondent calls for sufficient housing allocations, alongside a contingency allowance to address potential under-delivery, supported by a full audit of housing supply. They also consider clearly defined settlement boundaries essential for decision-making, housing delivery and providing certainty, while incorporating appropriate flexibility and proposed housing allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 6354

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

The consultation states that a borough-wide Green Belt assessment is being undertaken to identify grey
belt land and help inform any future decisions on potential Green Belt release. Because Green Belt policy
is set nationally through the NPPF, the local plan is not expected to introduce additional local Green Belt
policies.

Comment

Representation ID: 6355

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

It will also be necessary to for a full review of the Strategic Green Gaps and land released where appropriate. We welcome acknowledgement in the consultation that evidence will be produced looking at the role and function of the current strategic green gap and how it could function in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 6356

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

The respondent welcomes a review of Local Plan policies concerning Jodrell Bank but considers current restrictions within the consultation zone lack clarity and effectively prevent development. They argue development should be permitted where appropriate design or mitigation can address radio interference. They highlight the increasing scientific role of the Square Kilometre Array Observatory and uncertainty surrounding the future operation and funding of the Lovell Telescope. They consider the Local Plan should recognise Jodrell Bank’s scientific, educational, tourism and heritage importance while clarifying the Lovell Telescope’s future role. They request transparent assessment criteria for interference impacts, mitigation requirements and different types of development within the consultation zone.

Comment

Representation ID: 6359

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Emery Planning

The respondent highlights national policy requirements governing the preparation of development management policies. They state that Local Plan policies should not duplicate, substantively restate or conflict with National Development Management Policies. They consider additional local policies should only be included where necessary to support delivery of specific allocated sites or address particular local issues in accordance with the 2026 Framework. The respondent argues that any locally developed policies or standards must be supported by robust local evidence and clearly identify the sites or areas to which they apply. They also consider that the specific local circumstances justifying any additional policy requirements should be clearly demonstrated.