Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 6835

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The promoted 13.93-hectare Mere Hills Farm site adjoins Chelford, which is identified as a sustainable Local Service Centre with rail, bus, services and facilities. The site comprises mainly Grade 3b agricultural land and is considered to have no overriding technical constraints. Proposed mixed-use development would provide approximately 150 homes, including 45% affordable housing and self-build plots, alongside commercial and community uses. Proposals include a new expanded GP surgery, premises for local businesses and potential preschool accommodation. The development would also provide improved pedestrian and public transport connections, substantial green infrastructure, open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage measures.

Comment

Representation ID: 6836

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent supports recognition that circumstances have changed since the 2024 Issues and Options consultation but considers the current Scoping Consultation should represent a fresh start for the Local Plan. Previous consultation responses may provide a useful starting point but should not determine the issues addressed through the new plan-making process. The respondent argues that the Council should reassess the Borough’s planning issues in light of current circumstances, contemporary development pressures and changes to national planning policy, particularly the revised National Planning Policy Framework published in August 2026. The Local Plan should therefore respond to current priorities rather than relying primarily on earlier consultation evidence.

Comment

Representation ID: 6837

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

Paragraph 2.1 of the Scoping Document identifies several matters that could be addressed by the Local Plan. Whilst the matters identified are relevant, it is recommended that the Council clearly distinguish between those matters that the Local Plan is statutorily required to address and those matters for which discretion applies in respect of their inclusion. This is relevant in respect of Policy PM2 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which establishes that Local Plans should provide a spatial strategy which sets out specific proposals for accommodating development needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 6838

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent considers the Scoping Document presents the benefits of an up-to-date Local Plan too negatively and should instead emphasise positive planning for sustainable growth. They argue the Plan’s principal benefit should be its ability to coordinate development and ensure sufficient housing is delivered to meet identified needs. The respondent promotes land at Mere Hills Farm as a suitable location for growth, highlighting Chelford’s sustainability and ability to accommodate development. They consider the site could contribute approximately 150 new homes while also providing much-needed community infrastructure and should therefore be positively considered through the Local Plan review and site allocation process.

Comment

Representation ID: 6839

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

Paragraph 3.2 of the Scoping Document identifies that a number of changes have been made to the national planning system, that will have significant impacts on how the Council’s plans for further development in the Borough. Whilst it is appreciated that the Scoping Consultation was launched prior to the publication of the revised Framework, it remains essential this is recognised and positively addressed by the Council as the Local Plan progresses.

Comment

Representation ID: 6840

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent considers the Council’s approach to the increased housing requirement of 2,530 dwellings per annum overly negative and argues the Local Plan should instead positively plan to meet identified housing needs. They highlight opportunities submitted through the 2026 Call for Sites to contribute towards housing delivery. In particular, they promote Mere Hills Farm, Chelford, as a sustainable, available and deliverable site capable of providing approximately 150 homes alongside community infrastructure, including a new GP surgery. They state that no technical constraints prevent development and that a planning application demonstrates immediate availability, recommending that the site is allocated through the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 6841

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent considers that Cheshire East’s increased housing requirement is likely to provide exceptional circumstances for Green Belt boundary changes. They highlight national policy relating to suitable development around railway stations and argue this is particularly relevant to Mere Hills Farm, Chelford. The respondent considers the site to comprise Grey Belt land in a sustainable location close to Chelford railway station and adjoining the existing village. They argue the site represents an opportunity to release poorly performing Green Belt land while contributing towards housing needs in an accessible location. They therefore recommend that Mere Hills Farm is positively assessed through the Local Plan process.

Comment

Representation ID: 6842

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent recommends that detailed matters currently addressed through Supplementary Planning Documents should be dealt with through future supplementary plans rather than incorporated into the new Local Plan. They consider this would ensure consistency with the revised national planning framework. The respondent highlights national policy indicating that additional Local Plan policies should only be included where necessary to support the delivery of allocated sites. More detailed or locally specific requirements, including design standards, should instead be addressed through supplementary plans. This approach would allow the Local Plan to concentrate on its strategic and site-specific functions while providing detailed guidance through the appropriate supplementary planning mechanism.

Comment

Representation ID: 6843

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent notes that the proposed 15-year Local Plan period complies with national planning policy but questions whether this remains the most appropriate timeframe following revisions to the national framework. They highlight that national policy now requires Local Plans to cover at least 10 years from adoption, rather than 15 years, unless a longer period would assist in delivering strategic growth or longer-term infrastructure. The respondent therefore recommends that the Council reconsider the proposed 15-year plan period in light of the revised national policy and determine the most appropriate timeframe based on Cheshire East’s development and infrastructure requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6844

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: Mrs Gill Hughes

Agent: Claremont Planning

The respondent objects to using the Council’s Corporate Plan as a basis for the Local Plan’s vision and objectives. They consider the Corporate Plan’s four-year timeframe, covering 2025 to 2029, too short to provide an appropriate foundation for a long-term planning strategy. Given the anticipated timetable for preparing and adopting the Local Plan, they argue the Corporate Plan is likely to be substantially out of date by adoption. The respondent therefore considers that the Local Plan’s longer-term vision and objectives should be informed by more appropriate evidence and strategic considerations rather than being based upon a short-term corporate document.