An outline planning application was submitted to Cheshire East Council for a residential development of 127 dwellings, including 38 affordable homes, on greenfield land west of Audlem. The site lay wholly within designated open countryside, beyond the defined settlement boundary, and was not allocated in any part of the development plan. Planning Voice was instructed by a local resident to prepare a comprehensive, policy-grounded objection letter addressing the full range of material planning considerations. The application was refused by the council.
The client contacted Planning Voice as a resident of Audlem village, where a developer had submitted outline plans for 127 homes on open countryside land adjacent to Moorsfield Avenue. This was the third time in 20 years that developers had targeted similar land around the village, and a large number of residents were opposing the application. The client felt they needed professional support from someone who understood how to effectively oppose major housing developments with policy-grounded arguments. The village had already fought to require an Environmental Impact Assessment, but the council had ruled one was not needed. The client engaged Planning Voice to prepare a detailed opposition document supported by planning policy, ensuring the objection would carry weight with the decision-makers.
“Rachel listened to what we wanted in terms of objection letter for over 130 homes near our house. She did some research and wrote an 8 page letter for us to send to the planning department. This letter contained all the terminology to make our case. We have just found out that the planning application has been refused. We are delighted with the work that Rachel did and would thoroughly recommend her services to those who wish to object to planning applications.”
— Mr Tom S, Trustpilot, July 2025
Our detailed review of the application, the development plan and the site context identified a series of fundamental policy conflicts and evidential deficiencies. The application site lay wholly outside the settlement boundary of Audlem as defined by the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS) and the Audlem Neighbourhood Plan. It was designated as open countryside and was not allocated in either the Local Plan or the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD), which explicitly states that no new housing allocations are required in Audlem. The proposal was therefore speculative, unplanned and contrary to the borough’s established spatial strategy, which directs growth to key service centres.
The applicant attempted to justify the scheme by reference to a shortfall in the council’s five-year housing land supply, claiming only 3.29 years’ supply. We examined this argument in detail and identified that the applicant’s independent assessment was flawed — it relied on speculative and overly cautious assumptions to discount deliverable sites without positive evidence of non-delivery. The council’s own Housing Monitoring Update reported 3.8 years’ supply, but crucially, the Housing Delivery Test result stood at 262%, demonstrating that the borough was substantially exceeding its delivery targets. We argued that a supply shortfall alone did not render all countryside sites acceptable, particularly where the development plan and neighbourhood plan explicitly precluded housing in that location.
The objection further identified harm to landscape character within the South Cheshire Farmland character area, the loss of historic field patterns and hedgerow boundaries, conflict with Audlem Neighbourhood Plan Policies H1 and H3 governing the location and scale of new housing, the absence of any drainage strategy, missing heritage assessments, and no information whatsoever on how the development would address climate mitigation or energy efficiency. Previous refusals and dismissed appeals for smaller schemes in Audlem were cited to demonstrate a settled pattern of decision-making against speculative countryside housing in this location.
The objection was structured as a detailed, topic-by-topic analysis spanning eight pages and addressing every material consideration. On the principle of development, the proposal conflicted with CELPS Policies PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy), PG 6 (Open Countryside) and SD 2 (Sustainable Development), as well as SADPD Policy RUR 1, which restricts development outside settlement boundaries to limited rural exceptions. The SADPD confirmed that Audlem had no unmet housing need requiring additional allocations.
On housing land supply, we challenged the applicant’s attempt to discredit the council’s deliverable supply figure, demonstrating that the independent assessment by Emery Planning was speculative and inconsistent with national guidance on deliverability. We drew attention to the council’s cross-party Notice of Motion of 16 July 2025, which unanimously called for a reduction in the borough’s interim housing target and for continued full weight to be given to existing Local and Neighbourhood Plans.
On landscape and character, the proposal would cause irreversible harm to the open, agricultural character of the South Cheshire Farmland, destroying historic field patterns and hedgerow boundaries that contributed to the rural setting of Audlem. On neighbourhood plan conflict, the application was directly contrary to Policies H1 and H3 of the Audlem Neighbourhood Plan, which restrict new housing to sites within the settlement boundary and limit infill development to modest scales consistent with the village’s character. On infrastructure and technical deficiencies, the application failed to provide an adequate drainage strategy, omitted heritage assessments required by national policy, and contained no information on climate mitigation or energy efficiency measures.
The application was refused by Cheshire East Council. The council concluded that the proposal represented unjustified development in the open countryside beyond the settlement boundary, in conflict with the spatial strategy of the adopted Local Plan and the policies of the Audlem Neighbourhood Plan. The site was not allocated in the CELPS or the SADPD, which explicitly confirmed that no new housing allocations were required in Audlem. Despite the acknowledged shortfall in the five-year housing land supply, the council found that the adverse impacts of the development — including the harm to landscape character, the conflict with the neighbourhood plan and the deficiencies in the application — significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of additional housing delivery.
This case demonstrates that even large-scale housing proposals by major developers can be refused when a detailed, policy-grounded objection identifies clear conflicts with the development plan, neighbourhood plan and spatial strategy. A housing land supply shortfall does not override the plan-led system where the harm is demonstrable and the site is explicitly excluded from allocation. Comprehensive, evidenced objections that address every material consideration give decision-makers the confidence to refuse.
Related guidance: Green Belt & Countryside Objections · Overdevelopment · Cheshire East
Start with a free, no-obligation assessment. We’ll advise on the strength of your case before you commit to anything.
Get Free Assessment →