Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Fiona Mcall search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Creating a vision and objectives
Representation Summary:
100-word summary:
This objection opposes the release of Green Belt, greenfield and productive agricultural land for development within the Cheshire East Local Plan. While recognising the need for housing and employment growth, it argues that development should prioritise brownfield and previously developed sites before countryside is lost. The response highlights the Green Belt’s role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting rural character and supporting biodiversity. It also stresses the importance of safeguarding productive farmland for food security and environmental resilience. The objection calls for stronger consideration of infrastructure capacity, landscape impacts and ecological networks, and urges the Council to protect countryside for future generations.
Full text:
Objection to the Loss of Green Belt and Productive Agricultural Land – Cheshire East Local Plan
I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of Green Belt and other valuable greenfield and agricultural land for future development within the Cheshire East Local Plan.
I fully recognise that Cheshire East has to plan for housing and employment and that sustainable development is necessary. However, I strongly believe that meeting development needs should not automatically mean sacrificing the countryside, productive farmland and the natural environment that make Cheshire East such a special place.
The Green Belt is not simply “empty land”. It provides an important separation between settlements, prevents urban sprawl and protects the character and openness of the countryside. Once these fields are developed, that land is permanently lost and the opportunity to preserve it for future generations cannot be recovered.
I am particularly concerned about the continued loss of agricultural land. These fields are capable of producing food and supporting grazing, and at a time when food security and resilience are increasingly important, it seems fundamentally short-sighted to replace productive farmland with housing wherever other options may exist.
I also believe the ecological value of these areas must be given far greater weight. From my own home I look directly across Green Belt fields and see the benefits they provide for wildlife and biodiversity. Birds and other wildlife use these fields, hedgerows and surrounding habitats, and they form part of a much wider natural environment rather than existing as isolated parcels of land.
I support renewable energy and recognise the need to tackle climate change. However, environmental policy should not result in one form of valuable countryside being sacrificed for another. We need a balanced approach which protects food-producing agricultural land, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, landscape and Green Belt openness while identifying genuinely sustainable locations for development.
I would therefore ask Cheshire East Council to:
• Protect existing Green Belt boundaries wherever possible and resist their erosion through the Local Plan.
• Give priority to brownfield land, previously developed land, vacant buildings and the redevelopment of appropriate sites before considering the release of Green Belt or productive agricultural land.
• Give significant weight to the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land and the implications for long-term food security.
• Properly assess the cumulative impact of development on wildlife, biodiversity, hedgerows, mature trees, habitats and ecological corridors rather than considering individual sites in isolation.
• Consider the landscape and visual impact of development, particularly where housing would fundamentally change the character and openness of rural areas.
• Require robust evidence that existing roads, drainage, schools, healthcare, utilities and public transport can genuinely accommodate proposed development before land is considered suitable.
• Ensure that the protection of countryside and Green Belt is considered alongside housing numbers, rather than treating the release of greenfield land as an inevitable consequence of meeting housing targets.
I appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan responsibly for the future. However, responsible planning must also mean protecting what we already have.
The fields and countryside around our communities provide much more than space for potential development. They produce food, support wildlife, absorb and store carbon, contribute to biodiversity, provide openness and visual relief, and give people a connection with the natural environment.
Once this land has been built upon, none of those benefits can simply be recreated elsewhere.
I therefore strongly object to any unnecessary release of Green Belt, productive agricultural land or other valuable countryside for development and ask Cheshire East Council to pursue all reasonable brownfield and previously developed alternatives before considering the loss of further green land.
Please protect Cheshire East’s countryside now, rather than leaving future generations to live with the consequences of decisions that cannot be reversed.
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.