Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 6085

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• I support the heritage protection aspirations. It is important that the setting and surroundings of heritage assets and conservation areas is protected as well as within the boundaries itself.
o For example in Gawsworth the Peak Cluster Ltd pipeline proposal threatens the waterflow into the ancient fishponds in the conservation area and the unexplored below ground archaeology in the extensive original parkland that surrounds the conservation area.
• Neighbourhood Plans and Parish Councils should be consulted in identifying designated and non-designated heritage assets. It is important that the character of Cheshire East villages is not radically altered by enlargement, building in the green belt or introducing out of character developments

Comment

Representation ID: 6086

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• The Gawsworth Conservation area analysis has been recently reviewed and approved. It includes reference to the importance of the setting and the surrounding countryside, views etc It should be consulted if any site allocation is considered in the Village.

Comment

Representation ID: 6087

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• It is high time that the Jodrell Bank policies are reviewed. They are not fit for purpose.
o The conflicts of interest issues that were apparent in the abandoned SPD should be removed from future policy documents. The last publicly available SPD draft made some attempt to introduce evidence-based determinations of effects on the telescope operation but also showed a blatant and unacceptable Conflict of Interest and lack of independence with respect to the University of Manchester. Please see my previous communications with CEC on the matter.
o The existing situation where the University effectively has a veto over developments, which need not be independently scientifically verified, distorts objective evaluation of development sites by CEC planners and is of questionable legality and potential actions.
 Assessments of the effects of proposed developments on the operation of the telescope must be subject to independent expert scientific review. University of Manchester have previously ‘objected to everything in the consultation zone’. Their objections have not been evidenced based or independently verified. Sites which have little or no realistic effect on the operation of the telescope have been objected to. The University of Manchester veto has resulted in the unnecessary loss of small, affordable housing units in Gawsworth and no doubt elsewhere.
 Notwithstanding the designation of Jodrell Bank as a world heritage site, recent announcements about halting the scientific work there shows that it may not be as crucial as we believed. The Local Plan should accommodate a future where Jodrell Bank is an important tourist attraction that should be preserved and possibly expanded rather than a centre for scientific research.

Comment

Representation ID: 6088

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• A borough wide design code is clearly inappropriate given the wide diversity of settlements across Cheshire East.
• Neighbourhood Plans and Town and Parish Councils should be consulted with respect to locally specific design matters.
• Housing density. High density housing in village locations would fundamentally alter the character of villages and should not be permitted

Comment

Representation ID: 6089

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• Neighbourhood Plans should be listed as existing evidence that should be considered in developing the new Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 6090

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Cllr Paul Woods

• While understanding completely the circumstances which lead to CEC progressing with all possible speed in the current consultation it has meant that there has been insufficient time for Parish Councils to debate and engage fully with their residents over the principles raised in the scoping document and to prepare a response which has been fully thought through and properly reviewed.
o Future consultation exercises should a) allow more time for public review and b) permit challenge of some of the principles emerging from the scoping review.
• 6.31 Role of Elected Members
o Town and Parish Councils must be formally involved in representing communities. Involvement of elected members as described is not sufficient to ensure that the plan reflects local priorities and that decisions are informed by community views.
• 6.47 Community assemblies. These are a welcome innovation however the same content and discussions must be had with town and parish councils at the same time. Community assemblies are additional and members are inevitably self-selected and likely to have particular angle or interests that they wish to pursue. Community Assemblied do not and must not replace full and proper engagement with Parish Councils which are the democratic representatives of residents.
• Openness and proactive sharing of information is essential. It is sometimes necessary to submit Freedom of Information requests to CEC to obtain information that should have been shared with Town and Parish Councils and the public. CEC should commit to the maximum possible openness during plan development to engender trust and avoid being bogged down with FOI requests.