Dear Editor,
I am writing to express growing concern over the increasing threat to Cheshire’s green belt and open countryside as housing developers continue to target greenfield land ahead of suitable brownfield sites.
With significantly higher housing targets imposed by central Government and Cheshire East Council currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, the balance in planning decisions has become heavily tilted in favour of developers.
This has opened the floodgates for speculative applications which risk permanently changing the character of our towns and villages.
Developers naturally prefer building on greenfield and green belt land because it is easier, quicker and more profitable than regenerating brownfield sites.
But convenience for developers should not come before protecting our countryside, wildlife habitats and rural communities.
Cheshire East Council currently has only a 3.8-year housing land supply and its updated local plan is not expected to be completed until late 2027 or early 2028.
Until then, communities remain vulnerable to opportunistic developments which could later be approved on appeal, leaving local taxpayers to foot expensive legal bills.
Councils should be given greater powers and funding to identify and prioritise brownfield land first.
A full and rigorous assessment of every suitable brownfield site across Cheshire East should be undertaken immediately.
At present, the council says its difficult financial position means it only has the resources to assess brownfield sites already linked to planning applications.
That is simply not good enough when so much valuable countryside is at risk.
If Cheshire East were properly funded to search out and develop all suitable brownfield land, it could potentially raise its housing land supply to the required five years and help prevent inappropriate development on green belt and open countryside.
Our green spaces are not empty wasteland waiting to be built on. They are essential for environmental protection, flood prevention, tackling climate change, supporting local agriculture, improving public health and preserving the identity of rural communities.
Housing is needed, but it must be delivered responsibly. Brownfield sites should always come first before a single acre of green belt land is lost forever.
Regards
Jonathan White
Wistaston
No one is building on Green belt as it’s protected. Makes sense to build on grey belt rather than brownfield as the economics work better to build en masse especially as all services are already in place
Try telling our useless government that. They are hell bent on covering fields with houses.