Local plan scoping consultation

I would like to draw your attention to my concerns about the local plan:
1) Call for Sites process. Although you appear to recognise the importance of avoiding building on green belt land, recent evidence of planning activities do not reassure me that this is seen as a priority. There is a huge amount of brownfield site available that does not appear to be considered. I appreciate that the costs involved are more extensive but, once destroyed, the greenfield area cannot be recovered. Inevitably this is reflected in the call for sites nominations.
2) in addition to greenfield designation, extensive areas in east Cheshire are, and should remain, protected. The loss of biodiversity, wildlife conservation areas and irreplaceable habitats cannot be allowed to continue.
3) the development of land at risk of flooding is shameful. These properties will, in all likelihood, become impossible to sell as the flooding risk increases and may also be impossible to insure. This development also increases the likelihood of flooding elsewhere as standing water is moved.
4) I am extremely concerned about the power and influence of the property development companies. We have seen several recent examples where planning conditions haven’t been met with no penalties/consequence applied. Similarly- the profits materialised and often taken out of the country, as dividends, clearly demonstrate that these companies are not being restricted in what they charge or do. If they weren’t allowed to develop ‘easy’ greenfield sites they would be forced to consider the less lucrative but still profitable brownfield. I realise some of this is driven politically but much is in the hands of local policy makers.
3) in the assessment of what types of homes are most needed, there is no mention of enforcing this via planning permissions. Property developers appear to be reluctant to build starter homes, for example, as they are less profitable. This is the role of good planning.
4) it is not clear to me how rigorously the environment will be considered through the minimum stages required of new properties? Water and power conservation should be a staple of new builds to reduce our green footprint.
5) clearly new builds require expanded infrastructure of all types. Schools and healthcare facilities are already overwhelmed in areas where new development has taken place and infrastructure such as water and sewage does not seem to be getting upgraded. The plan has to ensure that work on supporting the infrastructure actually happens at the appropriate timing.

Thank you
Best wishes

I would like to draw your attention to my concerns about the local plan:
1) Call for Sites process. Although you appear to recognise the importance of avoiding building on green belt land, recent evidence of planning activities do not reassure me that this is seen as a priority. There is a huge amount of brownfield site available that does not appear to be considered. I appreciate that the costs involved are more extensive but, once destroyed, the greenfield area cannot be recovered. Inevitably this is reflected in the call for sites nominations.
2) in addition to greenfield designation, extensive areas in east Cheshire are, and should remain, protected. The loss of biodiversity, wildlife conservation areas and irreplaceable habitats cannot be allowed to continue.
3) the development of land at risk of flooding is shameful. These properties will, in all likelihood, become impossible to sell as the flooding risk increases and may also be impossible to insure. This development also increases the likelihood of flooding elsewhere as standing water is moved.
4) I am extremely concerned about the power and influence of the property development companies. We have seen several recent examples where planning conditions haven’t been met with no penalties/consequence applied. Similarly- the profits materialised and often taken out of the country, as dividends, clearly demonstrate that these companies are not being restricted in what they charge or do. If they weren’t allowed to develop ‘easy’ greenfield sites they would be forced to consider the less lucrative but still profitable brownfield. I realise some of this is driven politically but much is in the hands of local policy makers.
3) in the assessment of what types of homes are most needed, there is no mention of enforcing this via planning permissions. Property developers appear to be reluctant to build starter homes, for example, as they are less profitable. This is the role of good planning.
4) it is not clear to me how rigorously the environment will be considered through the minimum stages required of new properties? Water and power conservation should be a staple of new builds to reduce our green footprint.
5) clearly new builds require expanded infrastructure of all types. Schools and healthcare facilities are already overwhelmed in areas where new development has taken place and infrastructure such as water and sewage does not seem to be getting upgraded. The plan has to ensure that work on supporting the infrastructure actually happens at the appropriate timing.

Thank you
Best wishes

I would like to draw your attention to my concerns about the local plan:
1) Call for Sites process. Although you appear to recognise the importance of avoiding building on green belt land, recent evidence of planning activities do not reassure me that this is seen as a priority. There is a huge amount of brownfield site available that does not appear to be considered. I appreciate that the costs involved are more extensive but, once destroyed, the greenfield area cannot be recovered. Inevitably this is reflected in the call for sites nominations.
2) in addition to greenfield designation, extensive areas in east Cheshire are, and should remain, protected. The loss of biodiversity, wildlife conservation areas and irreplaceable habitats cannot be allowed to continue.
3) the development of land at risk of flooding is shameful. These properties will, in all likelihood, become impossible to sell as the flooding risk increases and may also be impossible to insure. This development also increases the likelihood of flooding elsewhere as standing water is moved.
4) I am extremely concerned about the power and influence of the property development companies. We have seen several recent examples where planning conditions haven’t been met with no penalties/consequence applied. Similarly- the profits materialised and often taken out of the country, as dividends, clearly demonstrate that these companies are not being restricted in what they charge or do. If they weren’t allowed to develop ‘easy’ greenfield sites they would be forced to consider the less lucrative but still profitable brownfield. I realise some of this is driven politically but much is in the hands of local policy makers.
3) in the assessment of what types of homes are most needed, there is no mention of enforcing this via planning permissions. Property developers appear to be reluctant to build starter homes, for example, as they are less profitable. This is the role of good planning.
4) it is not clear to me how rigorously the environment will be considered through the minimum stages required of new properties? Water and power conservation should be a staple of new builds to reduce our green footprint.
5) clearly new builds require expanded infrastructure of all types. Schools and healthcare facilities are already overwhelmed in areas where new development has taken place and infrastructure such as water and sewage does not seem to be getting upgraded. The plan has to ensure that work on supporting the infrastructure actually happens at the appropriate timing.

Thank you
Best wishes

I would like to draw your attention to my concerns about the local plan:
1) Call for Sites process. Although you appear to recognise the importance of avoiding building on green belt land, recent evidence of planning activities do not reassure me that this is seen as a priority. There is a huge amount of brownfield site available that does not appear to be considered. I appreciate that the costs involved are more extensive but, once destroyed, the greenfield area cannot be recovered. Inevitably this is reflected in the call for sites nominations.
2) in addition to greenfield designation, extensive areas in east Cheshire are, and should remain, protected. The loss of biodiversity, wildlife conservation areas and irreplaceable habitats cannot be allowed to continue.
3) the development of land at risk of flooding is shameful. These properties will, in all likelihood, become impossible to sell as the flooding risk increases and may also be impossible to insure. This development also increases the likelihood of flooding elsewhere as standing water is moved.
4) I am extremely concerned about the power and influence of the property development companies. We have seen several recent examples where planning conditions haven’t been met with no penalties/consequence applied. Similarly- the profits materialised and often taken out of the country, as dividends, clearly demonstrate that these companies are not being restricted in what they charge or do. If they weren’t allowed to develop ‘easy’ greenfield sites they would be forced to consider the less lucrative but still profitable brownfield. I realise some of this is driven politically but much is in the hands of local policy makers.
3) in the assessment of what types of homes are most needed, there is no mention of enforcing this via planning permissions. Property developers appear to be reluctant to build starter homes, for example, as they are less profitable. This is the role of good planning.
4) it is not clear to me how rigorously the environment will be considered through the minimum stages required of new properties? Water and power conservation should be a staple of new builds to reduce our green footprint.
5) clearly new builds require expanded infrastructure of all types. Schools and healthcare facilities are already overwhelmed in areas where new development has taken place and infrastructure such as water and sewage does not seem to be getting upgraded. The plan has to ensure that work on supporting the infrastructure actually happens at the appropriate timing.

Thank you
Best wishes