Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Paul Mitchell search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Respondent: Paul Mitchell
Representation Summary:
I strongly support Chelford Parish Council’s feedback and believe the Local Plan should identify a clear village centre containing key community facilities. New development should be proportionate to Chelford’s existing size and character, with priority given to small-scale development on brownfield rather than greenfield sites. I believe no further development should take place until existing infrastructure deficiencies are addressed. These include traffic levels and speeds, inadequate water pressure, unreliable electricity supplies, limited bus and rail services, and inadequate footpaths. I am particularly concerned about pedestrian access to the station and village hall, including the narrow footpath across the railway bridge.
Full text:
Hi
I am writing with comments regarding the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping in relation to Chelford. I live in Chelford (Redacted).
I strongly support the feedback given by Chelford Parish Council but would add the following comments;
• The plan should identify a “centre” to the village which would include the majority of community resources (e.g. community centre, health centre, retail); this should not be determined by developers keen to get plans approved on the basis that they meet some community need
• The scale of proposed developments should be commensurate with the existing community and its environment; many proposed developments are too large to be absorbed into the existing community (reflecting the desire of developers to “scale up” proposals so they can achieve economies of scale)
• The plan should prioritise small scale development on existing brownfield sites rather than allowing development on greenfield sites (including Greenfield sites that have been re-branded as greyfield sites)
• No development should be approved until current infrastructure shortcomings have been resolved. Specifically I would highlight the following;
o Traffic density and speed through the village are both problematic
o Water pressure is inadequate to meet current demand, never mind any additional demand
o Electricity supply has been frequently interrupted and needs upgrading
o The current bus service is minimal and not consistent with any proposals to expand the village
o The current rail service is also minimal and not consistent with expansion
o Footpaths to the station and village hall are wholly inadequate; the paths are too narrow bearing ion mind the traffic density and speed. This is particularly problematic over the railway bridge
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.