Keele neighbourhood plan representations

This representation relates to the Plan as a whole and its compliance with the basic conditions, rather than to the content of any individual policy.

I support the Plan's aims and do not object to its policies. My comments concern whether the SEA and HRA screening and the Basic Conditions Statement reflect the submitted Plan and the Local Plan adopted on 8 July 2026, and request that these are updated before examination. My representation concerns:

• Basic Conditions Statement section 5 (general conformity) and section 6 (SEA and HRA obligations).

• SEA Screening Statement and HRA Screening Report submitted with the Plan.

• Keele Neighbourhood Plan (June 2026), sections 2.4 (Local Policy Context) and 2.5 (Evidence and Planning Rationale), and Policies KNP-1 to KNP-12.

• Consultation Statement (June 2026), in respect of the Regulation 14 responses from the Borough Council and Natural England.

Full comments are found on the attached sheet.

Full comments

1.1 I make this representation as an LLM and PhD graduate of Keele University and a resident of Newcastle-under-Lyme. My comments are confined to whether the Plan meets the basic conditions on environmental assessment and general conformity.

1.2 In summary, the SEA and HRA screening determinations relied on in the Basic Conditions Statement were made in November 2023 on an earlier draft of the Plan, before the new Local Plan was adopted on 8 July 2026. The Plan has changed materially since then, and the strategic context has changed fundamentally. The Basic Conditions Statement also assesses general conformity only against the superseded 2009 Core Spatial Strategy.

1.3 I ask that, before examination, the Borough Council issues updated SEA and HRA screening determinations for the submitted Plan and that the Basic Conditions Statement is updated to assess conformity with the adopted Local Plan. The screening may reach the same conclusion, but it should rest upon the Plan and policy context as they currently stand.

2. SEA and HRA screening no longer reflects the Plan or its context

2.1 The Basic Conditions Statement (section 6) relies entirely on the November 2023 screening to show compatibility with retained EU obligations and with Chapter 8 of Part 6 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. That screening assessed the "Keele Neighbourhood Plan Screening Document," which contained 18 draft policies (KHG1 to KUC1). The submitted Plan contains 12 restructured policies (KNP-1 to KNP-12) and a Green Guidance Note, including a new policy on landscape setting and coalescence (KNP-9) and named employment locations (KNP-3).

2.2 The screening documents anticipated this. The HRA conclusion (paragraph 7.1) states that rescreening may be needed if the Plan changes after the Regulation 14 consultation, and Natural England's letter of 5 January 2024 says the same. The Regulation 14 consultation took place in February and March 2026, after which the Plan was revised again for submission.

2.3 Both screenings were prepared before the new Local Plan was finalised. The HRA screening explains 
(paragraph 6.18) that in-combination effects with the emerging Local Plan could not be determined because it was still in preparation, and the SEA screening (Table 3, "the cumulative nature of the effects") 
accepted that sites coming forward outside the neighbourhood plan process could give rise to some cumulative effects, including traffic and surface water flooding, while concluding these were unlikely to be significant. The Local Plan 2020 to 2040 was adopted on 8 July 2026 and replaces the Core Spatial Strategy against which both screenings were prepared. It identifies strategic allocations within and adjoining the parish, including KL13 (Keele Science Park Phase 3), KL15 (Land South of A525) and the Lyme Park allocation on the former golf course (SP11), several of which the submitted Plan itself refers to (section 2.4.2). Policy PSD3 also anticipates in the order of 800 new homes for Keele and Keele University over the plan period. The development that the screenings could only anticipate in general terms is therefore now identified in the development plan.

2.4 The Local Plan was itself subject to Habitats Regulations Assessment (Lepus Consulting, July 2024). That assessment screened in likely significant effects on components of the Midland Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites, including in-combination air quality effects on Black Firs and Cranberry Bog from traffic on the A531, and reviewed plans in neighbouring authorities, including Cheshire East, as well as the Minerals and Waste Local Plans. Following appropriate assessment, it concluded that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of any European site. I do not suggest that the Neighbourhood Plan is likely to alter those conclusions. The Local Plan assessment does, however, provide a more recent and comprehensive evidence base than was available in 2023, and an updated screening of the submitted Plan could draw on it directly. This would allow the Habitats Regulations and SEA basic conditions to be tested against the current development plan with little additional work.

2.5 The Borough Council raised this at Regulation 14, noting that the SEA and HRA screening pre-dates 2025. The Consultation Statement's response addresses only the Plan period, not the screening.

3. General conformity reviewed against a lapsed strategy

3.1 Section 5 of the Basic Conditions Statement assesses general conformity only against the 2009 Core Spatial Strategy and describes the new Local Plan as "at the Examination stage." That was correct when the Plan was submitted on 12 June 2026. However, the Local Plan 2020 to 2040 was adopted on 8 July 2026 and has replaced the Core Spatial Strategy, so the examination will take place against a different development plan from the one the Statement assesses. Similarly, the Statement has regard to the December 2024 National Planning Policy Framework, which was replaced on 17 August 2026.

3.2 The submitted Plan relies on Section 2.4.1 (of the Core Spatial Strategy) and describes Keele village as a tier 5 "village" in which "no further growth is planned." The adopted Local Plan instead identifies Keele Village (with University Hub) as a Rural Centre (Policy PSD2) and expects Keele and Keele University to accommodate in the order of 800 new homes over the plan period (Policy PSD3).

3.3 I would ask that the qualifying body provides an updated Basic Conditions Statement that assesses general conformity with the policies identified as strategic in the adopted Local Plan, including Policy PSD3 and the strategic allocations within and adjoining the parish, and has regard to the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026, so that the examiner can test these basic conditions against the development plan and national policy now in force.

4. Screening method and local environmental evidence

4.1 HRA screening test. Paragraph 4.5 of the HRA screening states that appropriate assessment is needed where likely significant effects "cannot be ruled out after applying straightforward mitigation measures," with "detailed mitigation measures" reserved for appropriate assessment. Since People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta (C-323/17, 2018), measures intended to avoid or reduce harmful effects on a European site may not be considered at the screening stage at all. The Local Plan HRA (Lepus Consulting, July 2024, section 2.3) applies this approach. The 2023 conclusion rests mainly on the absence of pathways rather than on mitigation, but the approach described in paragraph 4.5 is reflected in the in-combination reasoning discussed below, and any updated screening should apply the correct test.

4.2 In-combination assessment. The HRA screening asks (above paragraph 6.6) whether other plans or projects could, together with the Plan, "impact on the integrity of a European site," and answers "No." I would respectfully note two points.

First, the question is framed around site integrity, which is the test for appropriate assessment, rather than whether a likely significant effect can be excluded, which is the test at screening. Second, the review considers plans but not consented or reasonably foreseeable projects, and paragraph 6.18 confirms that the emerging Local Plan could not be assessed at the time. The information relied on also appears not to have been checked for being up to date. Paragraph 6.17, repeating the Minerals Local Plan, states that "there is a valid permission for further exploration" for coal bed methane at Keele University. However, the relevant permission (N.12/10/299 M) required all exploratory operations to cease, and the site to be reinstated, by 22 December 2017. The screening also states that the coal bed methane permissions "have not been implemented," although the County Council's 2013 decision notice records that the first of two approved exploratory boreholes at the site had already been drilled.

I recognise that the screening's conclusion rests principally on the absence of pathways to the sites, and these points may not alter that conclusion. They do, however, indicate that the in-combination assessment should be revisited in any updated screening, applying the correct test and drawing on current information about relevant plans and projects.

4.3 Comparative Review The approach described in paragraph 4.5 is reflected in the review of the Betley, Balterley and Wrinehill Neighbourhood Plan (paragraphs 6.24 and 6.25), whose area contains Betley Mere and Black Firs and Cranberry Bog: in-combination effects are ruled out principally because that plan's Policy BBW6 protects those sites. The Environment Agency's catchment mapping suggests this conclusion is likely correct, since much of the parish drains to Checkley Brook, whose catchment contains neither site. But an updated screening should rest on evidence of this kind, including the wastewater treatment works serving Keele, rather than on another plan's protective policies.

4.4 Local environmental data. In its response of 5 January 2024, Natural England agreed with the HRA screening conclusion. On SEA, however, it explained that it does not hold information on significant populations of protected species or local data on priority habitats, local wildlife sites, soils or landscape, and recommended that advice be sought from the Council's ecological, landscape and soils advisers and the local records centre "before determining whether a SEA is necessary." The SEA screening outcome is dated November 2023, before that response, and the published documents do not appear to record that this advice was subsequently followed. Natural England repeated the same recommendation in its Regulation 14 response, to which the Consultation Statement records the response "Comment noted." I would also note that paragraph 6.1 of the Basic Conditions Statement states that consultation with Natural England, the Environment Agency and Historic England "confirmed their opinion that full SEA would not be required." The Environment Agency and Historic England did so, but Natural England's response was conditional on local advice being obtained.

5. Requested actions before examination

5.1 I respectfully suggest that the following is done before the Plan proceeds to examination, or that the examiner requests it:

1. The Borough Council issues an updated SEA screening determination under regulation 9 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 for the submission version of the Plan.
     
2. The Borough Council updates the HRA screening for the submission version, applying the screening test without regard to mitigation and assessing in-combination effects with the adopted Local Plan, including allocations KL13, KL15 and SP11(2).
     
3. Both updated screenings take account of local ecological, landscape and soils advice, as Natural England recommended, and the receptors identified in the Plan's own evidence.
     
4. The Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England are re-consulted on the updated screenings.
     
5. The Basic Conditions Statement is updated to reflect the new screening outcomes and to assess general conformity with the adopted Local Plan.