Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 2753

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Yibing Zhu

The proposed scale of growth around chelford could almost double the size of the existing settlement, yet current infrastructure is already limited. Site assessment must therefore give substantial weight to existing road capacity, public transport, schools, healthcare, drainage and utilities. Land should not be considered suitable simply because it is available or has been promoted by landowners. The cumulative impact of multiple sites around chelford must be assessed together, rather than considering each site in isolation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2754

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Yibing Zhu

All proposed housing growth around Chelford is on Green Belt land and could almost double the settlement. This would cause a major permanent loss of openness and countryside. The Council should clearly justify why this scale of Green Belt release is necessary here, why brownfield or non-Green Belt alternatives are insufficient, and how such growth can be supported given existing infrastructure constraints.

Comment

Representation ID: 2755

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Yibing Zhu

The current settlement hierarchy is too broad. Settlements within the same tier differ substantially in population, employment, retail provision, public transport and infrastructure capacity. For example, Bollington and Holmes Chapel are functionally very different from smaller settlements such as Chelford, Goostrey and Wrenbury. Sharing the same tier should not imply a similar capacity for growth. The new hierarchy and distribution of development should reflect the actual scale, function and infrastructure capacity of each individual settlement.

Comment

Representation ID: 2756

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Yibing Zhu

The proposed development around Chelford could almost double the settlement, but existing infrastructure is very limited. There is only one small primary school with fewer than 100 pupils, one main single-carriageway road, no traffic-light system, one GP surgery and one small railway station. These facilities are not sufficient to support development on this scale. Infrastructure capacity should be properly assessed before any sites are allocated, with necessary improvements clearly funded and deliverable.

Comment

Representation ID: 2757

Received: 26/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Yibing Zhu

Development around Chelford should be assessed as a whole, not as a series of isolated sites. Growth approaching the existing size of the settlement could have a major cumulative impact on landscape character, countryside, biodiversity, drainage, flood risk and agricultural land. These impacts should influence whether sites are allocated in the first place, rather than being left for mitigation at planning-application stage. The Local Plan should also consider whether development on this scale would fundamentally alter the character and identity of Chelford.