Brereton Neighbourhood Plan (modification) Regulation 16 Consultation

1. Vision and Objectives – Brereton Heath
I support the Plan’s aims of improving local facilities, delivering sensitive housing and supporting economic activity. However, these objectives are undermined by the decision to leave Brereton Heath without a Settlement Boundary.
Treating the whole area as Open Countryside creates unnecessary restrictions on modest housing improvements and future development. A Settlement Boundary should instead reflect the current built-up extent of Brereton Heath, including Brereton Heath Lane, Moss Lane and the A54.
The evidence base also understates existing facilities. Brereton Heath includes the Nature Reserve Visitor Centre, Davenport Chapel meeting room and Kingfisher Park play area, all of which provide or could support community use.
The Plan’s support for re-use of existing buildings and local economic activity is difficult to reconcile with a policy approach that places these assets entirely within Open Countryside.
The Character Assessment also fragments Brereton Heath into separate areas rather than recognising it as a connected settlement with shared facilities.
Requested Action
Establish an updated Settlement Boundary for Brereton Heath that reflects its current built form and allows the Plan’s housing, community and economic objectives to be delivered in practice.
2. COMMUN 01 – Community Hub
I support the aim of providing a community hub, but the current policy and evidence base fail to recognise existing community infrastructure in Brereton Heath and risk directing future provision disproportionately towards Brereton Green.
Brereton Heath already has suitable existing facilities. The Brereton Heath Nature Reserve Visitor Centre is a substantial permanent building with parking and public toilets and is already used for educational and recreational purposes. As COMMUN 01 supports the re-use of existing buildings, it should be recognised as a potential community hub. Re-use would also avoid unnecessary development on greenfield land.
The Plan should also recognise Davenport Chapel, which provides meeting space for community groups, together with other nearby facilities including Somerford Park Farm and the Kingfisher Park play area. Collectively these demonstrate an established cluster of accessible community facilities serving Brereton Heath.
The removal of the Brereton Heath Settlement Boundary is also inconsistent with the aspiration in COMMUN 01. If Brereton Heath is treated entirely as Open Countryside, opportunities to improve or provide community facilities there may be unnecessarily constrained.
Requested Action
Recognise the Nature Reserve Visitor Centre, Davenport Chapel and Kingfisher Park as existing community facilities serving Brereton Heath.
Reinstate an appropriate Settlement Boundary for Brereton Heath so that the aspirations of COMMUN 01 can be delivered fairly across the Parish.
3. COMMUN 02 – Map 5: Existing Community Facilities
I object to Map 5 because it omits or understates several facilities serving Brereton Heath, resulting in an incomplete evidence base.
Map 5 should recognise:
Kingfisher Park Play Area, shown on Map 3 but omitted from Map 5.
Davenport Methodist Chapel, including its community meeting room and activities.
Childminding at Forest School, providing registered childcare and family activities from Davenport Chapel.
Somerford Park Farm, adjoining Brereton Heath and accessible on foot, providing a café, gym, veterinary practice, other services and public sporting events.
Together, these form an established cluster of community, leisure and service facilities around the A54.
Requested Action
Update Map 5 to accurately record these facilities and their uses. Their presence demonstrates that Brereton Heath has an established range of accessible facilities, supporting its recognition as a sustainable settlement with an appropriate Settlement Boundary rather than being treated wholly as Open Countryside.
4. COMMUN 02 & COMMUN 03 – Davenport Chapel
Proposed Amendment: Asset of Community Value
I propose that Davenport Chapel be identified in the Neighbourhood Plan as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), supporting the objectives of COMMUN 02, COMMUN 03 and TRANS 01.
The Chapel already provides important community facilities, including a place of worship, meeting room, local groups and childcare provision. Childminding at Forest School operates from the site four days a week for 47 weeks of the year, providing Ofsted-registered childcare and other activities for children and families.
The site also benefits from a large car park and adjacent bus stop, making it an accessible and well-equipped community location for Brereton Heath.
Protecting and improving this existing facility would support the Plan’s objective of strengthening community facilities locally and could reduce the need for residents to travel by car to Brereton Green or Holmes Chapel.
Designation as an ACV would help safeguard the site from loss to other uses and support opportunities for future community investment and grant funding.
Requested Action
Identify Davenport Chapel, meeting room and outdoor space as an Asset of Community Value and a priority community facility under COMMUN 02 and COMMUN 03.
5. HOUS 01, HOUS 02 and HOUS 07 – Housing Strategy
Formal Objection
I object to the proposed Neighbourhood Plan Review because its housing policies are internally inconsistent and do not provide a clear or realistic approach to future housing delivery.
The Plan does not identify a clear housing requirement for the review period and appears to rely heavily on older housing evidence. Without an up-to-date requirement and suitable allocations, the Plan risks being unable to demonstrate how local housing needs will be met.
There is also a conflict between HOUS 01 and HOUS 02. HOUS 02 supports sustainable development, yet the proposed settlement boundaries significantly restrict where such development could occur. The evidence also acknowledges very limited capacity within Brereton Green.
Removing the Brereton Heath Settlement Boundary further limits opportunities for modest, locally appropriate development, including affordable housing for people with a local connection.
Similarly, HOUS 07 risks having little practical effect if the Plan provides no realistic opportunity for developments large enough to trigger its affordable housing provisions.
With Cheshire East also facing housing land supply pressures, an overly restrictive approach may increase rather than reduce the risk of speculative development.
Requested Action
Identify a clear housing requirement for the review period.
Reinstate an appropriate Settlement Boundary for Brereton Heath.
Consider small, suitable housing sites within settlement boundaries so that modest local growth can be planned and the wider Open Countryside better protected from larger developer-led proposals.
6. Appendix 3 – Brereton Green Infill Boundary Review, Question 3
Formal Objection: Exclusion of Hazlehurst Farm
I object to the continued exclusion of Hazlehurst Farm, School Lane, from the Brereton Green Infill Boundary.
The Review states that the farmstead should remain outside the boundary because it pre-dates the settlement or infill boundary. This is not a sound planning reason. Settlement boundaries are intended to define the existing built-up area, irrespective of when individual buildings were constructed.
The conclusion that Hazlehurst Farm has no clear functional relationship with Brereton Green is also incorrect. The farmstead:
directly adjoins the existing boundary, with no intervening open countryside;
forms part of the continuous built frontage along School Lane; and
shares the same roads, services and village facilities as properties within the boundary.
The present boundary therefore stops at an arbitrary point and excludes established development which is physically and functionally part of the settlement. The same issue applies to the continuous built frontage on Back Lane towards Rose Cottage.
Requested Action
Extend the Brereton Green Infill Boundary to include Hazlehurst Farm and the continuous built frontage on Back Lane, and amend the response to Question 3 to “Yes” to reflect that this existing built form is logically and physically part of Brereton Green.
Overall Request
I would be grateful if these comments and objections are taken into account in the review of the Brereton Neighbourhood Plan 2026 and reflected in the revised evidence base, settlement boundaries and policy wording.