Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 2512

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Consultation should be led by the elected members within their constituency. On-line consultation alone limits the opportunities for engagement.
There is an over emphasis on the planned direction being based on local officer interpretation of central government policy.
Such policy is important but it is localities that implement this. Local Strategy must be tempered by local inhabitants.

Comment

Representation ID: 2513

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Neighbourhood plans that have been agreed following extensive local consultation should be the focus for future housing development. To lose this information through developer intervention in the planning process would be to make this consultation exercise meaningless.

Comment

Representation ID: 2514

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Affordable social housing should be the priority. The term Affordable is a meaningless statement. Social housing for rent ensures a range of quality homes for the population.

Comment

Representation ID: 2515

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Para 5.31 outcomes should be published for consultation before final plans are agreed.

Comment

Representation ID: 2516

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Para 5.28 is key here. CEC has a strong agricultural base. Given climate change and the need for food supply, loss of agricultural land should be a major factor in refusing planning permission. If the council is to truly represent its residents the outcome of discussions linked to para 5.28 should be shared with residents before any priority planning objectives are published in the final document..

Comment

Representation ID: 2517

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Spatial distribution is a key aspect for CEC. Developments that increase car journeys to places of work effectively increase the carbon footprint of an area. Such a potion does not fit with central government or CEC policies regards to climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 2518

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

Placing Chelford in the local service centre category appears to be based solely on the railway station.
When infrastructure such as retail outlets and local employment opportunities are looked at Chelford does not compare favourably with any of the other towns/villages in that category.
It appears that the call for sites outcome has been a determining factor rather than objective led categorisation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2519

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

The green belt is an essential planning concept to restrict urban sprawl, and maintain effective bio diversity. Central Government comment about well served railway must be looked at in terms of current usage linked to employment structure in an area. A railway station itself should not be a determining factor for local planners.

Comment

Representation ID: 2520

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

The strong data regards agriculture should indicate that removal of agricultural land as a result of call for sites is not an economically sustainable position for CEC.

Comment

Representation ID: 2521

Received: 25/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Clive Howlett

These are just words. Without factual backup they offer no argument for future development needs. To engage in meaningful growth planning, detail of current growth areas is required,