Keele neighbourhood plan proposal documents

Responses to representations

This part of the statement summarises the representations made in response to the Regulation 14 consultations, together with the parish council’s response.

National and statutory bodies

Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council (NuLBC)

Representation

General comments: NuLBC wishes to place on record that it commends the steering group, parish council and residents of Keele on the engagement undertaken as well as the time, thought, effort and resource that has been invested by all involved.

The council is keen to develop and maintain a close working relationship with Keele Parish Council to ensure issues are addressed and that both the neighbourhood plan and emerging local plan documents are in general conformity with each other.

In the absence of formal residential allocations (to contribute to meeting the identified requirements) in Keele’s neighbourhood plan, it is important to emphasise the provisions of the NPPF that would consequently be invoked if this position is maintained. In particular, paragraph 14 highlights the implications and prospective risks for the weight that can be afforded to the neighbourhood plan in such circumstances.

The comments made should also be viewed through the prism of the wider changes to the planning system and legislation currently emerging, such as provisions of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which is now starting to manifest in neighbourhood plan examinations as exemplified by the highlighted text in the addendum. This state of flux further emphasises the value of as great a degree of clarity as possible being expressed in the interpretation wording of each of the neighbourhood plan’s policies to aid understanding and their intended application, whilst ensuring their alignment to local and national policy.
 
The specific comments raised below are presented under the relevant chapter/section headings of the neighbourhood plan.

For ease of future reference and tying consultation comments to specific sections of the document, I would advocate using paragraph numbers in subsequent iterations of the neighbourhood plan. This would bring benefits to all parties and make the administrative aspects of responding to points raised easier to collate and address.

Introduction: Section 1.1 Purpose of the plan: Consideration should be given to expanding this section to provide absolute clarity on intent. For example, does it wish to strengthen the community’s voice, set a vision for how the parish will evolve, seek to protect specific environmental assets, influence development. If so, this should be clearly elucidated at the outset and as informed by the engagement undertaken to date.

Section 1.2 Status of the plan: Explain the rationale behind the ten-year horizon (2025-2035) being determined as most appropriate, noting that the emerging Local Plan is 2020-2040. Notably also the SEA and HRA screening exercise pre-dates 2025.

Section 1.3 Implementation, monitoring and review: The role of NuLBC in the development management process should be highlighted.

The mechanisms and indicators for monitoring policy should be detailed and included as part of an appendix to the neighbourhood plan.  
 
Changes to the NPPF are anticipated (in Summer 2026) following consultation recently undertaken on the December 2025 document and the neighbourhood plan should carefully consider its content where relevant to the plan’s production and application. This includes the potential opportunity afforded by neighbourhood priority statements as an alternative to neighbourhood plans.

In future iterations of the neighbourhood plan, more detail could be provided on the steps taken to date in its production and the necessary stages still to be addressed before the neighbourhood plan can become made. This could be done either in succinct written form or a diagram.

Background: Section 2.1 The neighbourhood area: Can the household and population figures be broken down further to differentiate between the resident and student make-up of the parish?

Section 2.2 Community and stakeholder engagement: Further background information on the details of these various activities should be collated including photos and publicity material as part of the consultation statement to accompany the submission of the neighbourhood plan.

The decision to progress a borough-specific local plan was made over 5 years ago and with the time horizon for the neighbourhood plan stated as commencing in 2025, it may be prudent to reword or delete the section on obstacles to timely progress.

Explain what a TRO is and what it means in practical terms.

Section 2.3 National policy context: Please see earlier comments about the updated NPPF. 

Section 2.4 Local policy context:  We recognise that the (neighbourhood) plan is being prepared during a period in which a borough-wide local plan is also emerging, and the Parish Council should consider the interactions between the two in preparing their plan. To aid this process, thought could be given to the value of undertaking a health check assessment by qualified independent parties to provide advice on any potential amendments required to ensure the basic conditions are met (this also extends to national planning policy and advice).

If possible, include more information on the granting of consent for 200 new homes e.g. does this include the Hawthorn’s site in Keele village and the land north of Pepper Street, highlighted in section 2.2? Were these schemes granted permission in advance of 2025?

Reference to the 2023 NPPF is perhaps misplaced. Earlier sections (such as 2.3) referred to the 2024 version. Any rewording on this also needs to be viewed in the context of the new NPPF to be published in the coming months.

On the emerging local plan, allocations KL13 and KL15 relating to Keele University’s development ambitions should be fully referenced and had regard to. It’s also worth noting that, depending on your progression, the Local Plan may be adopted in advance of any further iterations of the neighbourhood plan.

Section 2.5: Evidence and planning rationale: housing - Are you confident that this August 2017 housing needs assessment remains contemporary owing, for instance, to 2021 census data subsequently being available and also changes in market conditions (for reasons such as tax and regulation changes) impacting on the private rented sector.

For commitments and completions we calculated 587 (rather than 588), but it would be useful for you to clarify the component sites (i.e. KL13 and KL15) in addressing the housing need balance (from 800). The disparities between the neighbourhood plan 2025-2035 and local plan 2020-40 time horizons is significant in this context also, as the 800 figure relates to the 20 year period of the local plan.

Local employment and community facilities - Define what is meant by community facilities (or maybe refer to KNP-4 as detailing this), and the assertion that Keele has a limited range of range should be revisited as it does not seem to align with the services highlighted in the subsequent paragraphs and the value afforded by the University campus as well as the Parish’s connections and proximity to Newcastle’s town centre.

St Johns CE primary school could be added to the list of services to be found in Keele. 

Design and heritage - The government has published an updated Design guide and this alongside other relevant and up to date documents should be referenced accordingly. The 2017 heritage and character assessment should also be evaluated to determine the contemporary extent (all or in part) of its applicability to the neighbourhood plan.

Countryside and environment - Is it possible that the Defra Magic Map is linked as a footnote to allow any interested parties to access this directly.

Transport and infrastructure - Provide the date of the Department of Transport strategy titled ‘Gear change a bold vision for cycling and walking’. It would be useful too if the 4 themes could be explained further and how the neighbourhood plan accords with each.

Keele University - NuLBC will defer to any consultation comments received from the university and how this is represented in the neighbourhood plan including the appropriate referencing of the estate strategy and masterplan. (* see comment)

Section 3.1 Planning aims: A word appears to be missing in point i. after ‘and…’

KNP 1: 1 Residential development: does this suggest/is the policy’s intent that brownfield sites irrespective of them being infill would be supported in existing built areas. If further text could be added to the interpretation section to clarify this aspect that would be useful.

KNP 2: Residential mix and affordable housing: Specify the local plan policy (HOU2 housing mix and density?) that KNP-2 is looking to augment.

KNP 3: Employment: Does this policy extend to the preservation of the existing uses in these localities and where for reasons of no longer being suitable or viable, other uses may be appropriate? Given the sensitivities around the nature of the site, perhaps the cemetery could be removed from the list also. It might as well be appropriate to keep the university campus separate (as part of KNP-12) owing to its nature and scale being so different to the other locations listed. Defining the type of employment uses (having regard to the Use Class order) as part of the interpretation will aid understanding of policy intent.

KNP 5: Sustainable design and character: Do the pedestrian priority streets referred to in the interpretation text include accessibility for cyclists also? It’s also perhaps worth having regard to the recent consultation (and its subsequent final publication in due course) on the design and placemaking planning practice guidance. Design codes produced at county level may also emerge in the coming months that are useful to refer to.

KNP 6: Keele village conservation area and KNP-7 Keele Hall conservation area and historic park and garden: Direct reference could be made to the conservation area appraisals and associated documents either in the policies and/or the interpretation section.

KNP 8: Rural and natural environment: No overall adverse impacts may be difficult to quantity as part of the planning balance judgement and alternative phrasing of 1. could be explored, such as appropriate compensatory mitigation measures (i.e. offset benefits) should be used to minimise any adverse impacts.

How is the 20% figure for biodiversity net gain justified? This does not align with local plan policy SE7: biodiversity net gain, which whilst it albeit states at least a 10% measurable net gain, this represents a key benchmark figure. Local need and viability is integral to any variance from this and it will need to be fully reasoned as to why 20% is considered appropriate in Keele.

KNP 9: Landscape setting and coalescence: Figure 6 green gaps. It’s unclear as to the justification for their inclusion, especially given the extent of green belt. There is also no detailed argument presented that there is a substantive heightened risk from development of coalescence, along with any consequent erosion of distinctive character and landscape setting within the areas where the gaps are highlighted.

Therefore, it may be worth reflecting on whether you consider that the practical application of such a policy stance would stand up to scrutiny in the determination of development proposals. On this basis, whilst there could be value in retaining these for information and contextual purposes within the neighbourhood plan, it perhaps should not be assumed that they would provide any additional layer of protection beyond what the statutory designations (such as green belt) provide at present.

Are the two areas highlighted in 2 referenced in figure 6? If not, it could be worth making each of these distinct.

It is also important to acknowledge that work to accompany the new local plan may also reveal areas of grey belt across the borough and this will play a part in determining the relative merits of sites for allocation.

KNP 10: Local green space: With reference to paragraph 107 of the NPPF any designations need to be demonstrably special, and it is important that in each circumstance for LGS1 and LGS2 you are confident that the additional designation is necessary and would serve a useful purpose. It is also important to engage with any owners of the land in question. The health check highlighted above will be valuable in these regards.

KNP 12: Keele University estate: Restating the comments made under Section 2.4 earlier, specific mention should be made to local plan allocations KL13 and KL15. Details of the date of publication of the university’s masterplan is also advised to set the benchmark year.

The wording of 5, could be construed negatively in the way harmful alterations are mentioned. If this could be softened to for example, unsympathetic. Similarly, this change in phrasing may also be applicable to the final paragraph of the implementation text.

Green guidance note: Section 4.1 Key principles for sustainable development. Whilst understanding the concept, is the mixed-use aspect relating to the parish when viewed as a whole, rather than the neighbourhood plan advocating this within future development proposals?

Section 4.3 Landscape and green infrastructure: The first and third paragraphs could be amalgamated.

Infrastructure priorities: A community infrastructure levy has not been established for Newcastle-under-Lyme, nor is it anticipated that one would be established in the future. Regard will however continue to be had to the changing regulatory landscape on this issue. Whilst the infrastructure expenditure priorities are noted, any contributions yielded via s106 would need to have satisfied the requisite legal tests to ensure the planning obligations are necessary to make developments acceptable in planning terms.

Addendum: Examiner letter to the Coldean neighbourhood planning forum dated 16 March 2026.

Response

General comments: Comments noted. Table added of permissions and allocations to the evidence base section.

Additional numbering and heading formats added for clarity.

Figures have been provided by NuLBC and added to plan document.

Introduction: Section 1.1 amended to include further description.   

The 2035 date is based on the AECOM HNA. However, if NULBC has a more up to date figure for the Parish, this could be substituted and the end date could be amended accordingly.   

Reference added to the Local Planning Authority and its role.

This (mechanisms and indicators) is a matter for current and future councillors in the parish to decide.

The neighbourhood plan cannot pre-empt changes to the NPPF. 

It is not necessary for the neighbourhood plan to describe the statutory process.  However, the basic conditions statement sets out how legal requirements have been met.

Background: This is based on publicly available ONS census data.

The details are held in the local green space report and householder survey analysis. Dates added to activities listed in section 2.2

Paragraph on obstacles to timely progress deleted.

Sentence regarding TRO deleted as it relates to non-planning matters.

Noted, (National policy context) but this can’t be changed until the new NPPF is issued. This may happen during the examination process.

The national programme has now closed and the technical support for this is no longer available. However, our consultants were a partner in all 4 national programmes and has supported around 250 NP’s.

Table added on housing consents and allocations.

Text added on policies in the emerging local plan relating to strategic sites.

Action: reference added to the strategic sites

If NuLBC has a more up to date figure for the parish, this could be substituted and the end date could be amended accordingly.

Action: Table added on housing consents and allocations from data provided by NuLBC.

Word ‘limited’ deleted.

St Johns CE primary school added to community facilities list.

Action: Checked the facilities listed on page 12 with KNP4 policy list and made sure they were the same.

This is at a consultation stage and the plan could be amended at a later stage when it is published. 

Links could expire, so the DEFRA Map is best accessed as a web search.

Text amended to delete the DfT reference and the updated Staffordshire County Council LCWiP added.

Keele University have been approached for an updated map of the estate and masterplan area.

Section 3.1 Planning aims: ‘and’ removed.

KNP 1: Interpretation amended for clarity to include reference to brownfield sites.

KNP 2: Interpretation amended to include reference to HOU2.

KNP 3: Keele University campus left in for consistency with the later policy. Cemetery removed and list updated.

Action: Added road names to all the employment uses listed in the policy and reviewed the list. Removed the cemetery and others where there is a conflict such as the golf driving range, which this policy supports its change of use and KNP4 protects it.

KNP 5: Interpretation amended. Reference to the placemaking planning practice guidance could be added at the examination stage, if the document is published by then.

KNP 6: Reference to the Keele conservation area appraisal to interpretation. No conservation area appraisal exists for the other conservation area.

KNP 8: Policy wording amended replacing “overall” with “significant”, to better reflect national policy.

10% is a minimum requirement in legislation. Many local plans and neighbourhood plans now request 20% for greenfield sites, reflecting priorities in national policy.

KNP 9: The AECOM design code, February 2021 provides the justification for the green gaps.

The green gaps should be considered against the historic environment and natural environment chapters of the NPPF, not just the green belt chapter. The policy would also be relevant to the special statutory duties for heritage. The interpretation already makes this clear.

Map amended to interpretation.

Action: amended map figure 6) to make distinct the 2 fields shown in clause 2 of the policy to interpretation.

The policy is more related to historic and natural environment, rather than green belt. It should be noted that the special statutory duties relating to heritage would apply to grey belt sites.

KNP 10: The local green space report includes analysis against NPPF criteria and underpins the designations. An informal consultation was undertaken with landowners and wider public.

KNP 12: Comment noted.

“harmful” changed to “unsympathetic”.

Green guidance note: Paragraph updated. Paragraphs amalgamated.

Infrastructure priorities: Wording updated to refer to “planning infrastructure monies”.

Addendum: Comments noted and this will be addressed in the basic conditions statement.

United Utilities

Representation

General remarks: 

Allocations for new development

Following our review of the NP, we note that there are no site-specific allocations for new development above and beyond those already identified in the wider development plan for Newcastle-Under-Lyme. If this were to change, we would request early dialogue so that we can inform the site selection process and ensure any issues that are a concern to us are highlighted to you as early as possible.

Our assets

It is important to outline the need for our assets to be fully considered in any proposals in the NP Area.

UUW will not allow building over or in close proximity to a water main.

UUW will not allow a new building to be erected over or in close proximity to a public sewer or any other wastewater pipeline. This will only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances.

Site promoters should not assume that our assets can be diverted.

On occasion, an asset protection matter within a site can preclude delivery of a proposed development. It is critical that site promoters/applicants engage with UUW on the detail of their design and the proposed construction works.

All UUW assets will need to be afforded due regard in the masterplanning process for a site. This should include careful consideration of landscaping and biodiversity proposals in the vicinity of our assets and any changes in levels and proposed crossing points (access points and services).

We strongly recommend that the LPA advises future applicants/promoters of the importance of fully understanding site constraints as soon as possible, ideally before any land transaction is negotiated, so that the implications of our assets on development can be fully understood. We ask site promoters to contact UUW to understand any implications using the below details:

Developer Services - Wastewater Tel: 03456 723 723

Email: SewerAdoptions@uuplc.co.uk

Developer Services - Water Tel: 0345 072 6067 Email: Watermains@uuplc.co.uk

Please note that UUW does not provide water and wastewater services to all parts of the Parish and therefore site promoters/applicants should also speak to other water / wastewater providers as appropriate.

Planning aims: UUW welcomes the planning aims, in particular point iii), which identifies the need for development to be sustainable and well designed. Sustainability and climate resilience should be ‘golden threads’ that guide the preparation of planning policy. A critical element of climate resilience is sustainable water management, which we have considered further below.

KNP 5: Within this policy, we note point 12 which states:

‘2. Development should include sustainable urban drainage, including permeable hard-surface areas to allow drainage of surface water.’

Whilst we welcome this wording, we request that the policy on sustainable drainage is expanded upon as it is a critical element of the response to climate change. We recommend the following wording for inclusion in the NP. This could be included as a separate policy or as part of amendments to Policy KNP-5.

‘Where required by the local planning authority, applications must be supported by a strategy for foul and surface water management. Surface water must be discharged in accordance with the surface water hierarchy in the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems or any replacement guidance.

The design of proposals must assess and respond to the existing hydrological characteristics of a site to ensure a flood resilient design is achieved and water / flooding is not deflected or constricted.

Applications will be required to incorporate sustainable drainage which is proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. The sustainable drainage must be multi-functional wherever possible, and designed in accordance with the four pillars of sustainable drainage, in preference to underground piped and tanked storage systems, unless, there is clear evidence why such techniques are not possible. The sustainable drainage should be integrated with the landscaped environment.

Explanatory text

Application of the hierarchy for managing surface water is a key requirement for all development sites to reduce flood risk and the impact on the environment. Clear evidence must be submitted to demonstrate why alternative preferable options in the surface water hierarchy are not available.

Foul and surface water drainage must be considered early in the design process. Sustainable drainage must be integrated with the landscaped environment and designed in accordance with the four pillars of sustainable drainage (water quantity, water quality, amenity and biodiversity). It should identify SuDS opportunities, such as green roofs; permeable surfacing; soakaways; filter drainage; swales; bioretention tree pits; rain gardens; basins; ponds; reedbeds and wetlands. Any drainage should be designed in accordance with ‘Ciria C753 The SuDS Manual’, sewerage sector guidance, or any subsequent replacement guidance.

The hydrological assessment of the site must consider site topography, naturally occurring flow paths, ephemeral watercourses and any low-lying areas where water naturally accumulates. Resultant layouts must take account of such circumstances. Applications will be required to consider exceedance / overland flow paths from existing and proposed drainage features and confirm ground levels, finished floor levels and drainage details. Drainage details, ground levels and finished floor levels are critical to ensure the proposal is resilient to flood risk and climate change. It is good practice to ensure the external levels fall away from the ground floor level of the proposed buildings (following any regrade), to allow for safe overland flow routes within the development and minimise any associated flood risk from overland flows. In addition, where the ground level of the site is below the ground level at the point where the drainage connects to the public sewer, care must be taken to ensure that the proposed development is not at an increased risk of sewer surcharge. It is good practice for the finished floor levels and manhole cover levels (including those that serve private drainage runs) to be higher than the manhole cover level at the point of connection to the receiving sewer.’

The final two sentences of this explanatory text are particularly important to the Parish of Keele given the second bullet point of Code 20 of the Design Code. This notes the need to carefully consider buildings, which are lower than the road network.

KNP 9: We note the green gap that is identified on figure 6. We wish to highlight that we own and operate a wastewater pumping station in this location. Whilst we are keen to ensure that landscapes are appropriately protected, we also request flexibility in future planning decisions to allow for investment in our infrastructure to ensure that we are able to appropriately respond to future growth and environmental drivers.

4.2 Green design

UUW welcomes the below references in this section:

• living (green) walls or roofs as part of the design

• rainwater capture, storage and reuse (grey water) such as connecting rainwater goods to a water butt or collection of bath water

• sustainable urban drainage incorporated into the landscape design

• using permeable materials for hard surfaced areas

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): Code 11 landscaping

UUW recommends the following additional bullet point to this code:

‘Landscaping proposals, including proposals for tree-lined streets, must be integrated with the strategy for sustainable surface water management.’

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): Code 20 water and drainage

We welcome the text within this policy, however, we request that this provides specific examples of SuDS features. In doing so, we recommend that you refer to the following resources:

Susdrain case studies

RHS rain gardens

Raingardens guide (PDF document for downloading)

Reflecting our above comments, we also recommend the following additional wording to the second bullet point of Code 20:

‘It is common in Keele for the buildings to be located lower than the road network, creating risk of surface water run-off towards the property. The position of the development in relation to the road network should be considered within the design process. Any surface water drainage should be mitigated in these circumstances. Drainage details, ground levels and finished floor levels are critical to ensure the proposal is resilient to flood risk and climate change. It is good practice to ensure the external levels fall away from the ground floor level of the proposed buildings (following any regrade), to allow for safe overland flow routes within the development and minimise any associated flood risk from overland flows. In addition, where the ground level of the site is below the ground level at the point where the drainage connects to the public sewer, care must be taken to ensure that the proposed development is not at an increased risk of sewer surcharge. It is good practice for the finished floor levels and manhole cover levels (including those that serve private drainage runs) to be higher than the manhole cover level at the point of connection to the receiving sewer. Early consultation with the wastewater undertaker is strongly recommended to ensure that any risk of sewer surcharge is minimised through the detailed design of a site and the proposed drainage system.’

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): 6. Design guidelines

Within section 6.1 , we request that point 11 is amended as follows:

‘Incorporate necessary existing and proposed services and drainage infrastructure without causing unacceptable harm to retained features. Before commencing the design process, it is essential to confirm what utilities infrastructure exists, the details of any easements that are required and any associated restrictions on the design and construction process. Utility assets can be critical constraints that affect developable area, details of levels and landscaping, and details of services that cross an existing utility asset. Utility assets could also affect the deliverability of a proposal.’

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): Household extensions

Under the heading of household extensions, we request the following additional bullet point:

• ‘Before commencing the design of any household extension, it is essential to confirm whether there are any utilities within or adjacent to the boundary of your property as these could affect the ability to build your proposed extension, as well as the detail of any design, the approach to construction and approvals you may require.’

Response

General remarks: Comments noted. Evidence base section updated to include reference to United Utilities and a separate informal guidance note for developers.

Planning aims: Comment noted.

KNP 5: Comments noted. Evidence base section updated to include reference to United Utilities and a separate informal guidance note for developers.

KNP 9: Comments noted.

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): Code 11 landscaping

The design code was commissioned under the national programme and cannot be amended at this stage. However, The design code has informed the policies in the neighbourhood plan and these can be amended.

Policy KNP5 clause 3 amended to take account of landscape proposals and tree lined streets.

Keele neighbourhood plan design code final draft report (February 2021): Code 20 water and drainage

Reference to guidance added to green guidance note.

The design code was commissioned under the national programme and cannot be amended at this stage. However, The design code has informed the policies in the neighbourhood plan. Evidence base section updated to include reference to United Utilities and a separate informal guidance note for developers.

Residents and landowners

GDPR ref: 1

KNP 9

I appreciate the intention to protect the fields around Keele and keep them green. I would suggest that other fields should be named as having particular landscape value as part of the setting of Keele Conservation Area – as you drive towards Keele up three mile lane the openness on both sides is worth preserving, as is the view from Keele drive in the direction of the Shropshire hills. The ridge behind top farm is also a special skyline from the A525 and also from the Highway Lane side. The Keele conservation area has a field bordering it at the end of Pump Bank which needs to be preserved as part of conserving the conservation area. There are still clear furrows in it of the ancient strip farming which can be seen when the sun is low.

Ideally, all the fields on Figure 6 need strong protection from being built on.

GDPR ref: 2

KNP 8/9

Representation: I strongly support the protection of green spaces and the rural character of Keele. The natural environment - woodland, wildlife and open landscapes — is one of the most valuable aspects of living here and should remain a priority in future development.

Response: Comments noted. Various policies protect green spaces and landscape.

KNP 12

Representation: I would like to raise a concern regarding the condition of roads on the campus. In many areas, temporary surface repairs appear to be short-term solutions, and some sections may require more substantial maintenance. Road quality affects safety, particularly for families with children.

As a family with three children, I would also like to suggest consideration of a dedicated children’s playground within the residential areas of the campus. There are many families living here, and a safe and accessible play area would significantly improve community wellbeing and make the campus more attractive for long-term staff residents.

In addition, before approving further residential development, it may be helpful to assess the current use of existing housing and student accommodation, as some properties appear under-occupied. Improving and optimising existing housing stock could be considered alongside new construction.

As the campus includes a significant number of staff families who reside here for several years, it may also be valuable to consider policies that support long-term residential stability. A stable and settled community contributes positively to social cohesion, local schools and overall wellbeing.

Response: KP 8/9: Comments noted. Various policies protect green spaces and landscape.

Response: KP 12: Road maintenance issues fall outside of the scope of the plan. No change necessary.

Children's playground: This would be a matter for Keele University, rather than something planning policy can address. No change necessary.

University housing: This would be an accommodation management issue for Keele University and outside of the scope of the plan. No change necessary.

Anonymous 1

KNP 9

Representation: The green belt needs preserving. It exists especially for the people who live in the towns.

Response: Anonymous: no name nor address.

Anonymous 2

KNP 9

Representation: It is vital that the green belt is maintained. It was introduced for a reason-to protect urban sprawl (sic) and to keep the identity of villages and communities such as Keele. That reason remains valid. Small adjustments can be justified but not wholescale eradication. Now, more than ever, with UK biodiversity-and food security-under threat, the maintenance of open farmland/countryside is essential.

Response: Anonymous: no name nor address.