Local plan scoping consultation

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.

I’m emailing to comment on the Cheshire East local plan consultation. This is following some information I’ve seen that the fields behind Marsh Green Road in Elworth, and all the fields between Elworth and Bradwall are earmarked for development. I’ve had a look at the following website for the plan any haven’t found anything about specific fields:
https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/scoping-consultation/6-proposed-local-plan-engagement-strategy
If I’m looking in the wrong place with regard to a specific plan for the Elworth/ Bradwall fields, could you let me know?

In the meantime, I’d like to give some feedback about the plan itself. Much of it references decrees from central government and there is a certain element of ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ in this document. Any plan should be one that locally elected representatives are willing to stand behind, justify and argue for, without just sounding like they’re just going with what they’ve been told.

I’m partly sending this on behalf of my elderly parents, who have lived in Elworth since 1983. They’re part of a growing demographic: the consultation document states that Cheshire East has a higher than average proportion of older people. And that (according to section 5.40) ‘..the demographic profile is expected to change with an aging population’. I regularly go walking with my parents in ‘the fields’ (as we call it) at the end of Vicarage lane. They can make it around on foot from their house. There are several footpaths around this semi rural area, which enjoyed by many walkers (you always see others and say hello when walking around that area). Section 5.105 classes ‘green spaces’ as a key determinant of health. That’s clearly the case in these fields for many age groups.

Section 4.11 and 4.12 mention countryside attractions in or near Cheshire East, such as the Peak District and Tatton park. I’m a strong believer that green spaces, open spaces and walking shouldn’t be in a park or designated area that you need to travel to. They should be an integrated part of people’s lives that they can reach on foot, by stepping out of the house. This is especially the case for the elderly and people with limited mobility, or access to transport. Ironically, with the bolting-on of so many housing estates to towns in Cheshire East, many residents in these ‘rural’ towns now actually live further away from accessible open green spaces than many city dwellers do. I often think it’s significant that there’s no Parkrun in Sandbach. Something which is a part of life in almost every town and city in Britain on a Saturday morning doesn’t have a suitable public space in Sandbach. This is something to bear in mind when looking at green spaces that people use for walking or running. And it’s also where the whole ‘grey belt’ idea may come into conflict with some of the other ideas of the plan. Particularly your own stated aims around wellbeing. As I said, I think access to green open spaces should be an integrated part of people’s lives and not a reservation that you travel to (if you can).

I’ll now go on to sustainability: we all know that throwing more houses at these national issues isn’t going to solve them. Even if the quotas are met, they will just be increased again. Then again. There needs to be some acknowledgement of this by those involved in planning and within the plan itself. Sandbach in particular is at (or beyond) saturation point and supporting infrastructure hasn’t kept up for years. Sandbach school is being pretty much rebuilt to try and meet demand. I can’t see how it can though, in the future. If they’re struggling with numbers now, how can more housing be planned for Sandbach in the future? And this is before we get to medical facilities in (as you’ve said) an increasingly ageing town. I’m sure you’ll receive much more correspondence about this. One swimming pool with limited public access at the High school. One small park (as I’ve said, not big enough for the parkrun that most towns take for granted). Sections 5.118 and 5.119 talk about the importance of community facilities. I don’t think Sandbach has had any development of community facilities in decades, so surely that should be a priority before more housing? Section 3.7 says that the Cheshire east council is ‘unable to show that it has enough deliverable housing sites for the next five years’. There’s nothing wrong with stating this to those higher up. If it can’t be done, it can’t be done. I wouldn’t want to see those involved in planning standing by something that they don’t believe in and they personally know is unsustainable, but just keep saying that central government is making them do it. It needs to be a plan that everyone believes in.

Section 4.5 states that ‘Cheshire East benefits from strong transport connections’. This simply isn’t true. Growing up in Elworth, you could barely get anywhere (apart from the local fields) and not much has changed over the years. The ageing population is not going to be doing ‘active travel’ (5.112). Nor is the working population. I’m actually quite supportive of the idea of active travel and try to get around on foot and by bike as much as possible. But I’m also aware of its limitations. It’s only really viable for shorter journeys. You pretty much acknowledge this yourself in section 4.6, with the mention that transport links ‘make it easy to travel to other parts of the country’. The plan seems to based on people going elsewhere for work (which has long been the case in Cheshire East, with people going to places like Manchester and Stoke to work). So active travel has its place, but is limited. I’m sure you’re well aware of the severe traffic problems in Sandbach. It’s difficult to see how more housing (based on the idea that you work elsewhere) would be compatible with this.

Finally, the idea of ‘affordable housing’, which is in section 5.33-5.35. Again, you can’t fix this national problem by building more of it. It will only be ‘affordable’ until the first person buys it (a BTL landlord with the capital). Changes and legislation are needed to the market itself, with regard to distribution of ownership and multiple properties. Otherwise it’s a pointless exercise. Cheshire East needs to show some acknowledgment of these problems and commitment to change in the plan. Rather than just building more and saying the government made me do it.

As I said, I’m concerned specifically about the fields between Elworth and Bradwall. Lots of people nearby use them as an open green space with public rights of way across. I believe they should be classed as the ‘high quality open spaces’ discussed in section 5.120. Nearby accessible places for people that they don’t need to travel to.

Once more, I’d like to stress that elected representatives and people working on planning should personally believe in what they’re promoting and not just fall back on the idea that it’s a decree from central government that they have no responsibility for. Locally and nationally this is likely to be an issue where elected seats and jobs will change in the years to come if voices aren’t listened to.