Please find attached a copy of representations in relation to the above on behalf of Cilldara Group (Holmes Chapel) Ltd.

British Salt Limited (wholly owned by Tata Chemicals Europe Limited) own and operate the Hill Top Farm (Warmingham) Brinefield at Warmingham, Near Sandbach, and the Salt Processing Facility at Cledford Lane, Middlewich, from where brine extracted using controlled solution mining, is transferred by underground pipe for evaporation and purification prior to use in the industrial, manufacturing and food sectors. Please see attached representations with regard to the Scope of the New Local Plan relevant to British Salt Limited

Please see attached PDF response to the scoping consultation. the response follows the structure of the online portal questions

I am responding to the local plan consultation as a resident of Cheshire East. I live in Adlington and regularly walk through the area and enjoy the countryside. I am concerned at the shear volume of planning applications and the huge amount of the area identified on the call for the sites that it would fundamentally and irrevocably change the character of the area. We are at risk of being consumed by the Manchester conurbation. I want the new local plan to be evidence based, infrastructure first and brownfield first.

Before any land can be used for housing, it is essential that the plan includes the necessary infrastructure to support those houses; roads, public transport, healthcare, water, power, sewerage and drainage. All of these are overstretched as it is. Greenbelt land should only be considered as a last resort. The new definition of grey belt as excuse to pave over our countryside should never have been permitted.

So many new developments are built without any consideration to public transport and become car centric, increasing the congestion on our already stressed road network.

I am also concerned about food security, especially with the weather in recent years and the outlook for the climate over the years and decades to come, it’s going to become increasingly difficult to get good yields and reducing the land we have to farm by building all over it will not help. The countryside is not empty space. It is a living and connected landscape that is essential to our survival.

Planning applications need to consider not only what is gained, but also what is lost. The countryside cannot be brought back once it is destroyed.

Kind regards,
Andrew Jackson
[REDACTED]

I wish to strongly object to further housing developments being built on our Green Belt. We should be making better use of brownfield land and renovating existing buildings before destroying more open countryside.

Our farms, wildlife and natural spaces need protecting. Local roads, hospitals and other services are already under considerable pressure, so how can they cope with thousands of additional homes and residents?

Please listen to local residents and reconsider these plans. Once our Green Belt and countryside are gone, they can never be replaced.

Please take this email as my formal objection to these plans.

SEE ATTACHMENT

Stop Adlington New Town supports planned housing growth but argues that development should be infrastructure-led, sustainable and community-supported. The response advocates a brownfield-first approach, protection of Green Belt, agricultural land, biodiversity and ecological networks, and greater transparency in site assessment and Green Belt evaluation. Concerns are raised about strategic-scale development in Adlington, transport capacity, healthcare, education provision, and the loss of countryside. The group calls for an Interim Housing Policy Statement, stronger community engagement, a dispersed pattern of development across Cheshire East, and closer alignment between the Local Plan and environmental strategies, including the Local Nature Recovery Strategy.

Ahead of today’s deadline, on behalf of IM Land, please find attached representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

Land East/West of Pepper Street, Mobberley
Basic overall comment
I object to the proposed residential development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to its likely adverse impact on local infrastructure, traffic, and the character of the surrounding area. The scale of housing proposed risks increasing congestion on already busy local roads, placing additional pressure on schools, healthcare services, and community facilities. The development could also result in the loss of valuable green space and harm the rural setting that contributes to the area's identity. Furthermore, concerns remain regarding environmental impacts, drainage capacity, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support significant population growth sustainably.
Infrastructure and lack of public transport-based comment
I object to the proposed housing development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to the lack of infrastructure required to support substantial residential growth. Local roads already experience congestion and would be unable to accommodate the significant increase in traffic generated by the development. Public transport provision in the area is limited, with insufficient bus services and a lack of realistic alternatives to private car use for commuting, education, healthcare, and daily activities. This reliance on cars would worsen congestion and environmental impacts. Existing schools, healthcare services, and community facilities are also under pressure, making the proposal unsustainable without major infrastructure investment.
Traffic based comment
I object to the proposed residential development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to the significant impact it is likely to have on local roads, infrastructure, and the character of the area. The development would generate substantial additional vehicle movements, increasing congestion on Pepper Street and surrounding routes,
particularly during peak commuting and school run periods. This could lead to longer journey times, reduced road safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and increased air pollution. The proposal would also place further strain on existing schools, healthcare services, and community facilities. In addition, the loss of green space and rural character would be detrimental to the local environment and residents' quality of life.
Residents View focused comment
I object to the proposed housing development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to its likely adverse visual impact on existing residents and the surrounding landscape. The scale and extent of the development would significantly alter the area's rural character, replacing open green spaces with large areas of housing. Residents are likely to experience loss of attractive views, increased urbanisation, and a reduction in the sense of openness that currently defines the locality. The development could also appear intrusive within the existing landscape, adversely affecting the visual amenity of neighbouring properties and diminishing the character and quality of the area.
Village Character and Identity comment
I object to the proposed housing development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to concerns about increasing urbanisation and the resulting loss of the area's rural character. The site currently provides an important sense of openness and serves as a clear separation between existing settlements. Development of this scale would extend the built environment into the countryside, creating a more suburban appearance and eroding the distinct identity of the area. The proposal would replace open land with dense residential development, reducing green space and altering the landscape permanently. This gradual urbanisation would have a detrimental impact on local character, amenity, and residents' quality of life.
Environmental Concerns comment
I object to the proposed housing development at Land East/West of Pepper Street due to concerns about its environmental impact. The development would result in the loss of open green space, reducing habitat availability for wildlife and diminishing local biodiversity. Increased housing and associated infrastructure could place additional pressure on natural resources and contribute to greater levels of noise, light, and air pollution. The significant increase in vehicle use is also likely to worsen carbon emissions and affect local air quality. Furthermore, development of this scale risks altering the natural landscape and undermining the environmental character that makes the area valuable

Please can the Council demonstrate that essential infrastructure can support future growth:
Roads, junctions and congestion.
Chelford station cannot be considered a ‘well connected railway station’ as it does not meet the definition criteria relating to frequency of trains serving the station. Chelford must not, therefore, be included within any proposals for development around railway stations.
Bus services and public transport are very poor
Lines ar already full and constrained More trains will cause pathing conflicts
Higher frequency needs major upgrades
Longer trains require platform extensions
Extra stops will slow regional and national services

There are very few school places as the village stands and the GP surgery is full.

During the development of the last Local Plan a significant area of land was removed from the Green Belt to form ‘safeguarded land’ for longer term future development. Both parcels of safeguarded land have already been brought forward for development. Chelford must not be subject to further erosion of the Green Belt in order to protect the character of the village.

Supplementary planning documents relating to ecology and biodiversity net gain must set out clear requirements for delivery and processes to challenge poor delivery or non-delivery

Supplementary planning documents relating to developer contributions must seek to deliver infrastructure improvements prior to delivery of housing. Existing residents of communities, such as Chelford, must not suffer a deterioration in access to services (basic utilities, schools, medical services) as a consequence of poorly planned infrastructure delivery and/or inappropriate development.
I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being allocated as grey belt land. The erosion of Green Belt within the Parish, through the previous allocation of safeguarded land, has already had a significant impact upon the Parish, including local services and amenities.

I strongly object to green field sites within the Green Belt in Chelford being used for development. Chelford railway station is not a ‘well connected station’, therefore, does not meet the criteria for development under this policy. Land within Chelford is also not considered to be grey belt land, therefore, should also not be released for development on this basis.

I support the proposal to maximise the use of brownfield sites and to consider sites outside of the Green Belt first. Development should only take place to need a genuine housing need and not to meet speculative aspirations of landowners or arbitrary housing targets.

Will the development increase car dependency and congestion
Can the drainage, water supply and wastewater systems cope in Chelford? The current residents complain of low water pressure and flooding.
Protect Farms & Productive Farmland
Farmland is not “empty land”. It is:
A finite resource for food production
Essential to farming businesses and rural livelihoods
A key part of landscape, hedgerows and field boundaries
Integral to the character of Chelford

Subject: Formal Objection to the Proposed Development of 11,000 New Homes at Ashley, Cheshire

I am writing to formally object to the proposal to allocate land around Ashley, Cheshire, for the development of approximately 11,000 new homes.

I recognise the need for additional housing and the importance of delivering new homes in appropriate locations. However, I believe that a development of this unprecedented scale at Ashley would be fundamentally inappropriate and would cause substantial and irreversible harm to the Green Belt, local infrastructure, agricultural land, landscape, heritage and ecology.
My objections are as follows:
1. Green Belt Protection
The proposed site forms an important and narrow part of the North Cheshire Green Belt. Its openness provides an essential buffer between the urban areas around Hale and Trafford and the settlements of Knutsford and Mobberley. This land therefore performs important Green Belt functions, including preventing urban sprawl, preventing neighbouring settlements from merging and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The National Planning Policy Framework places great importance on Green Belt land and requires exceptional circumstances to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. It also requires authorities to examine other reasonable options for meeting development needs, including brownfield and previously developed land, before releasing Green Belt land. I therefore strongly question whether the exceptional circumstances required to justify such a major release of this particular area of Green Belt have been demonstrated.

2. The Site Should Not Be Treated as Grey Belt
The proposal should also be assessed rigorously against the current definition of "grey belt". National policy defines grey belt as Green Belt land comprising previously developed land and/or other land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes relating to sprawl, settlement merging or the preservation of the setting and special character of historic towns. The Ashley site consists substantially of open, working agricultural land. It forms a clearly defined rural buffer and contributes materially to preventing the outward expansion and merging of urban areas. It should therefore not simply be characterised as low-quality or "grey" Green Belt land. A proper, site-specific assessment of its contribution to all relevant Green Belt purposes is essential before any allocation is contemplated.

3. Transport, Congestion and Road Safety
Ashley is a rural location with a road network that is not capable of accommodating development on the scale proposed. The existing network includes narrow rural lanes and railway bridges that create significant constraints. The A538 and connections towards the M56 already experience congestion, while the surrounding road network would be expected to accommodate a very substantial increase in private vehicle movements. A development of 11,000 homes would represent a new population of many thousands of people and would inevitably generate considerable additional traffic unless genuinely viable alternatives to car travel were available. Ashley railway station cannot reasonably be treated as sufficient justification for locating a development of this scale here. The availability, frequency and capacity of rail services, together with the lack of comprehensive public transport and local services, do not make Ashley comparable with an established urban centre or major transport hub. National policy requires Green Belt development to be in a sustainable location and places importance on sustainable transport. The transport implications should therefore be assessed cumulatively, including impacts on existing residents, emergency services, pedestrians, cyclists and road safety.

4. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
The proposal would result in the permanent loss of a significant area of agricultural land, including land understood to comprise Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a agricultural land.
The loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land is a serious strategic concern. Once built upon, this resource cannot readily be restored to agricultural use. National policy recognises the importance of BMV agricultural land and states that, where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer agricultural quality should be preferred. The Council should therefore demonstrate why this high-quality agricultural land is required and why alternative locations containing poorer-quality agricultural land could not accommodate the proposed development.

5. Unsuitable Settlement Location
Ashley is a small rural settlement and does not possess the range of services, employment opportunities, education, healthcare, shops and public transport that would normally be expected to support a new settlement of this magnitude.
The proposal would effectively create a major new urban population in a rural location rather than directing growth towards locations where existing infrastructure and sustainable transport can support it.
National policy requires plan-making to promote sustainable patterns of development and to align growth with infrastructure. GGOV.UK
The scale of the proposed development is therefore fundamentally disproportionate to the existing character and function of Ashley.
6. Landscape and Heritage Harm
The development would cause substantial and permanent changes to the character and appearance of the Ashley countryside. There are also significant heritage considerations, including the setting of Grade II listed buildings, Ashley Hall and historic field and hedgerow patterns associated with the wider Tatton Estate landscape. The impact should not be assessed merely by considering whether individual listed buildings would be physically demolished. Development of this scale could fundamentally alter their historic rural setting and the relationship between heritage assets and the surrounding landscape. The proposal should therefore be subject to a comprehensive landscape and heritage assessment, including cumulative impacts and effects on the settings of heritage assets.

7. Ecological Impacts
The proposed development also raises serious ecological concerns. Potential impacts include effects on Cotterill Clough and its associated ecological value, ancient woodland, trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders, habitats and wildlife corridors. An 11,000-home development would inevitably introduce substantial construction activity, lighting, roads, drainage infrastructure, recreational pressure and increased human disturbance into an existing rural environment. The ecological assessment should therefore consider not only individual designated sites but also habitat connectivity and cumulative impacts across the wider area.

8. Infrastructure, Drainage and Manchester Airport Constraints
The existing infrastructure appears fundamentally inadequate for a development of this magnitude. Particular concern should be given to surface-water drainage and flood risk associated with the River Bollin and surrounding watercourses. The effects of additional impermeable surfaces, highway construction and changes to natural drainage patterns must be fully assessed before any allocation is considered. There are also significant aviation-related constraints associated with Manchester Airport, including aircraft noise and operational considerations and, where relevant, bird-strike safeguarding. These constraints reinforce the need for a comprehensive assessment of whether Ashley is actually capable of accommodating a development of this scale without unacceptable environmental, safety and infrastructure consequences.

Conclusion
In summary, I strongly object to the proposed allocation of land around Ashley for approximately 11,000 homes.
The proposal would:
• Remove a strategically important area of open Green Belt;
• Risk undermining the Green Belt's role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence;
• Fail to demonstrate that the site represents appropriate "grey belt" land;
• Cause the permanent loss of valuable Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• Place unacceptable pressure on an inadequate rural road network;
• Increase congestion and road-safety risks;
• Create substantial car dependency;
• Be disproportionate to Ashley's existing settlement hierarchy and infrastructure;
• Harm important landscapes and the settings of heritage assets;
• Threaten ecological networks, ancient woodland and protected sites;
• Create significant drainage and flood-risk concerns; and
• Introduce a very large population into an area that lacks the infrastructure and services required to support it sustainably.

I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to reject the proposed Ashley allocation and to direct housing growth towards more sustainable locations, particularly suitable brownfield land, existing urban areas and locations with the transport, infrastructure and services necessary to support development.

The scale of this proposal is simply not compatible with the existing character, infrastructure and environmental constraints of Ashley.
Please record this email as a formal objection to the proposed allocation.

On behalf of our client, Elderloch Ltd (part of MCR Property Group), please find attached our representations to the Regulation 20 Consultation of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.

On behalf of Bellway Homes Limited (Manchester Division) [Bellway], we are pleased to submit representations to the Council’s Local Plan Scoping Consultation. The representations provide detailed comments on the scope of the emerging Local Plan and demonstrate the deliverability of Bellway’s land interests to support residential allocations.

I wish to register my comments and objections to the Congleton Local Plan that particularly designates any land North of Wolsenholme Elmy Way for housing development as follows:
1). Cheshire East have already approved plans for up to 2000 new homes South of the link road that has seen large areas of Cheshires Rural Heritage, agriculture and farming land permanently lost.
2). Giantswood Lane, the only remaining unobstructed rural lane North out of Congleton, could be seriously affected by developments interfacing with the Lane, North of the Link Road, which would be strongly objected too by local residents.
3). Further development of Green Belt land North of the Link Road would expand the development boundary beyond that previously indicated and could lead to further erosion of Agricultural Farming Land, Cheshire's Rural Heritage, Natural Wildlife Habitats and Recreational Countryside. Current and future residents of Congleton value and use these rural retreats extensively.
4). Industrial and Housing Development in Congleton has been extensive for a number of years. Yet there is no visible accompanying plan for the development of infrastructure, services, health care, schools and pre school child care.
5). Current CEC Approved Housing Developments in the Congleton Area are long term and ongoing construction projects lasting between 5 to 8 years. Construction vehicle damage to minor roads is already apparent. Roads are covered in site ground works and noise and vibration from Site vehicles and piling has been significantly disruptive to residents wellbeing and damaging to local properties.
CEC should liaise with Local residents and consider all the above, before granting approvals.

Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation
Representations of Tatton Estate
September 2026Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Comments on the Local Plan Scoping Document 31
1. Introduction
Tatton Estate and context to this representation
1.1 This representation to the Cheshire East Local Plan scoping consultation is submitted to
Cheshire East Council on behalf of Tatton Estate.
1.2 Set in the heart of Cheshire, Tatton Estate is a forward-thinking and diverse rural estate
committed to shaping places that foster wellbeing, connectivity and long-term growth.
1.3 Located just ten minutes from Manchester Airport, thirty minutes from Manchester
city centre and forty-five minutes from Liverpool, Tatton Estate sits at the intersection
of countryside and regional opportunity.
1.4 Tatton Estate is a family-owned private estate, spanning more than 5,500 acres and
encompassing around 400 residential and commercial properties, villages, farms and
natural landscapes.
1.5 As a long-term steward of this land, Tatton Estate is committed to creating sustainable,
inclusive communities where homes, businesses, farming and nature thrive and exist in
balance.
1.6 Through responsible ownership and collaborative partnerships, Tatton Estate works to
create lasting value for communities while reinvesting in the infrastructure,
environment and places that sustain them.
1.7 Through its extensive landholdings, and its commitment to working collaboratively
with and having a lasting positive impact on the communities of which it is a part,
Tatton Estate is in a unique position in its ability to contribute to the development and
delivery of a progressive and sustainable Local Plan for Cheshire East and one which
optimises benefits for all.
The Tatton Villages: a model for rural regeneration
1.8 This representation is made in the context of the Tatton Estate’s recent submission to
the Local Plan ‘call for sites’ exercise (March 2026) through which it submitted eight
sites for consideration as development allocations through the Local Plan.
1.9 Whilst the call for sites submission includes sites that are proposed for development,
Tatton Estate’s vision and aspirations for the villages in which these sites are located
goes significantly beyond the provision of new homes, rather working together these
proposals are a vehicle to deliver a new and sustainable future for the ‘Tatton Villages’.
1.10 Tatton Villages is an Estate-wide commitment to reconnect and reinvigorate Tatton’s
towns and villages. By investing in schools, shops, meeting places, green spaces and
local services, Tatton Estate aims to strengthen everyday life across the local rural
network. Its vision is shaped around existing towns and villages; Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley, Rostherne, Millington and Bucklow Hill, set within 5,500 acres of land in North
Cheshire, surrounding but not including Tatton Park.2
1.11 Reflected in its proposals, growth within the villages would be distributed, landscapeled and tied to delivery of local facilities and infrastructure. Through this model Tatton
Estate is strengthening life in local places, communities and villages; renewing them
carefully so they grow and thrive rather than slowly losing their vitality.
1.12 This proposition sees the villages working together to distribute the benefit of
infrastructure investment across a shared geography. To that end, Tatton Villages is not
a single, large, edge-of-settlement expansion. It represents a coordinated approach to
village renewal focusing on well-designed sites in and around established towns and
villages, brought forward transparently within a coordinated framework and supported
by infrastructure investments that will benefit existing and future communities within
the area.
1.13 The new NPPF sets out the need for a positive approach to achieving a sustainable
future for rural settlements (see Policy HO6) and supports their managed growth to
enhance the vitality of rural communities and enable villages to grow and thrive,
especially where this will support local services. Tatton Villages is a practical, placebased embodiment of that. Through a holistic, multi-village approach, it creates an
opportunity to demonstrate what exemplary growth can look like in achieving a
sustainable future for this unique part of Cheshire.
Why villages need a new model
1.14 Across the UK, between 12,000 and 15,000 villages form the backbone of rural life, yet
the infrastructure that underpins daily village life has gradually weakened: local
services thin, younger households struggle to stay, older residents lose nearby
facilities, public transport reduces and community life becomes harder to sustain.
1.15 The villages are not broken. They are out of balance. Tatton Villages is Tatton Estate’s
long-term commitment to restoring that balance.
1.16 Homes are central to renewal because viable services require viable populations.
Housing is therefore not an end in itself but a catalyst for sustaining schools, meeting
places, shops, sport, green space and everyday social life.
1.17 Against this backdrop, Tatton Estate’s submission to the call for sites consultation set
out its proposals for eight locations. These articulate Tatton Estate’s ambition to put
these villages individually and collectively on to a more sustainable footing whilst
responding positively to the meeting the strategic development needs of Cheshire East
in a way which maximises local economic, environmental and social benefit.
1.18 These representations to the Local Plan are made in the context of this proposal.3
2. Comments on the Local Plan Scoping
Document
2.1 Tatton Estate welcomes the opportunity to provide its comments on the Local Plan
Scoping Document (LPSD) in the context of its proposals and land interests in Cheshire
East which are summarised above.
2.2 Comments are provided in response to each heading / subheading where relevant.
Summaries are provided where responses are more than 100 words long as requested
by the Council.
LPSD Section 2: New Local Plan
Why prepare a new local plan
2.3 Tatton Estate welcomes the preparation of an up-to-date Local Plan. It supports the
Council’s recognition that the starting point for determining the level housing
development which the Local Plan needs to make provision for is the Government’s
standard methodology, equating to 2,530 homes per annum. This scale of need
requires a balanced portfolio of deliverable sites, including strategic and smaller
allocations and urban and rural opportunities.
2.4 Housing should be planned as part of complete places. Site allocations should establish
clear requirements for transport, education, healthcare, utilities, green infrastructure,
affordable housing and community facilities. The Council should assess the net
improvement a proposal can deliver, including whether development can make an
existing settlement more sustainable, rather than treating the current absence of
services as a permanent constraint.
LPSD Section 3: Context for the New Local Plan
Increase in housing requirement
2.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 17th August 2026 is clear
that Local Authorities are expected to meet, as a minimum, the standard method
calculation for housing need. For Cheshire East this will, as the LPSD acknowledges,
represent a significant increase on the adopted housing requirement.
2.6 This uplift reflects the sustained need and demand for housing across the Borough.
This is illustrated by the comparatively strong rates of completions of housing following
the adoption of the current Local Plan, which whilst positive, have continued to fall
short of the full need for housing, as evidenced by sustained affordability issues and
growing numbers of households on the authority waiting list.
2.7 The NPPF continues to expect authorities to test whether the minimum need is
representative or whether a higher requirement is justified with Council correctly
recognising (at paragraph 3.7 of the LPSD) that the final housing requirement could be
higher.4
2.8 A proper reflection on the scrutiny of the housing requirement through the
examination of the adopted Local Plan, and specifically the evidential justification for
elevating the requirement to demonstrate alignment with planned economic growth, is
an important consideration for the evidencing of need, even in the context of the
standard method.
2.9 It is noted, in this context, that the LPSD acknowledges that, with reference to jobs
growth, the adopted Local Plan has seen average annual growth of 1.3%, significantly
exceeding the target prescribed in the Plan of 0.7% per annum (paragraph 5.68 of the
LPSD). The likelihood of this was consistently expressed by many representors at the
previous Local Plan Examination and it is reasonable to assume this level of growth will
be sustained and indeed exceeded recognising the economic assets in the authority
and anticipated infrastructure investment associated with Northern Powerhouse Rail
(NPR) for example.
2.10 It is therefore important that in progressing the informing evidence base that this
success and future investment potential is acknowledged and a positive approach
taken to sustain growth over the next plan period. This aligns with the Government’s
vision, as articulated through the National Industrial Strategy.
2.11 In providing for the homes and employment land that is required, it is critical that the
Local Plan acknowledges the sustained existence of different functional market areas
within the Borough. This recognises the size of the Borough and the relationships that
settlements in the north and south have with respective proximate larger economic
centres.
2.12 Of particularly note, settlements in the north of the Borough (loosely defined as the
previous Macclesfield district administrative area) are strongly related to the south
Greater Manchester housing market as a result of strong commuting links by road and
rail. This has historically driven high demand for housing and commercial floorspace in
this market area within the Borough. The challenge of supply keeping pace with
demand has continued to create challenging affordability pressures for local
communities.
Summary and implications
The Local Plan should, in accordance with national policy (NPPF Policy HO2) and guidance,
test whether a higher housing requirement than that calculated under the standard method
is justified to reflect growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure
investment. This must take full account of the implications of planned infrastructure
investment through NPR and related local and sub-regional economic strategies.
The Local Plan must acknowledge different market geographies in the Borough in providing
for housing and employment needs. The planned provision of development in the northern
market area must respond to strong demands arising from the strong relationship with the
southern Greater Manchester Market and a strong local economy.5
Changes to Green Belt policy
2.13 The LPSD identifies and seeks to summarise changes to national planning policy in
relation to Green Belt since the existing Local Plan was produced and adopted.
2.14 The following points are highlighted at this stage as relevant to the onward
development of the Local Plan in the context of the recently published NPPF.
2.15 Paragraph 2 of Policy GB3 of the NPPF confirms that exceptional reasons to amend
Green Belt boundaries through a Local Plan include where a Local Authority cannot
otherwise meet its development needs in full having considered the full potential of
non-Green Belt sites for this purpose.
2.16 The consideration of alternatives to the use of Green Belt land includes assessing
whether suitable sites to meet the development need exist outside of the Green Belt
(Policy GB3 paragraph 2c).
2.17 In this context, suitable is a relative term. A proper consideration of whether
development needs can be met without reliance on Green Belt is not simply a question
of whether there is, theoretically, sufficient land for this purpose but rather the context
to that land is an important consideration in determining its suitability as an alternative
to Green Belt release. For example, does sufficient non-Green Belt land exist in the
right locations, according to the intended spatial strategy, what are the land’s
accessibility characteristics, is it located where needs exist and is the land able to
support the requisite infrastructure improvements to accommodate development?
2.18 Through Policy GB3, NPPF effectively requires a consideration of such matters in
determining how much Green Belt land is needed to meet development needs and
where. For clarity, it directs plan making authorities away from a process of exhausting
all non-Green Belt opportunities, irrespective of their context, and then proceeding
with the absolute minimum level of Green Belt release required to deliver a numerical
development requirement. Instead, it requires a consideration of the suitability, and
sustainability of sites (considered in the round), to meet development needs in a
manner which accords with the objectives of the Local Plan and the achievement of
most sustainable outcomes. This principle is further clarified through Policy GB4d. An
appropriate site appraisal methodology will need to be developed to reflect this
approach.
2.19 Policy GB3 also directs plan making authorities to identify suitable land around wellconnected stations for development and that where a development plan’s spatial
strategy does this, exceptional circumstances do not need to be used to justify changes
to Green Belt boundaries. Cheshire East has several well-connected stations and
stations where, through planned investment, the frequency of services to station can
increase a locations connectivity.
2.20 The LPSD notes that if there is need to release land from the Green Belt to meet
development needs, grey belt land should be considered first. In accordance with
Policy GB4 of the NPPF this sequential approach should be applied where ‘… this
promotes a sustainable pattern of development overall.’6
2.21 This is to say that the sequential approach to the release of Green Belt sites must be
applied in the context of the need to achieve a sustainable pattern of development
overall. Thus, consistent with the point made above, when considering Green Belt
sites, the land’s broader attributes need to be considered in determining its suitability
for allocation, not just its grey belt credentials. A site’s status as grey belt does not
override all other considerations in selecting sites from the Green Belt for allocation.
Overweighting of a site’s grey belt situation, in a consideration of candidate Green Belt
releases, should therefore be avoided as directed by NPPF Policies GB2 and GB4.
2.22 It is important that the approach to the identification, filtering and assessment of sites
for allocation is based on a methodology which reflects the direction provided by NPPF
policies GB2, GB3 and GB4 in this regard.
Summary and implications
In accordance with NPPF Policies GB2, GB3 and GB4, the appraisal and selection of sites for
allocation must have regard to the need to achieve a sustainable pattern and distribution of
development in overall terms and to the need to select sites which best achieve this beyond
just a consideration of Green Belt status and contribution. The sequential approach to site
selection must be carried out in this context. Whilst Green Belt is a critical consideration, an
overweighting of the Green Belt status of sites must be avoided in the context of NPPF in
order that the most sustainable sites, which collectively deliver the intended spatial
strategy, are selected for allocation.
Economic growth
2.23 It is agreed that the Local Plan must provide for more than just the quantified need for
employment land and ensure that the needs of different facets of the modern
economy are provided for.
2.24 Within the LPSD, the Council highlights that the strong job growth has been achieved
where there remains a healthy supply of employment land (375 ha, paragraph 5.68).
Whilst in quantitative terms this appears significant, it is strongly recommended that
the evidence base thoroughly re-assesses the suitability, and in particular the market
attractiveness, of this supply of land as to the extent to which it meets the needs of key
sectors and the needs of the modern economy as documented in NPPF Policy E1.
2.25 It is observed in this regard, for example, that the supply of remaining land along
strategic road corridors (the M6 and M56) in the northern part of the authority in
particular is comparatively modest in the scale of recognised elevated demand and
NPPF’s recognition of the specific locational requirements of the freight and logistics
sector (Policy E3). This must take adequate consideration of the economic advantages
the authority has on the basis of its proximity to large populations and areas of
economic activity in Greater Manchester and Merseyside linked by this road network.
2.26 Recognising the datedness of the adopted Local Plan and its evidence, it is critical that
account is given to the emerging demands and market signals arising from digital
infrastructure, data centres and gigafactories in the authority, again recognising its
connectivity, existing digital clusters within the authority and in close proximity to7
Greater Manchester, for example. The emergence of a need for data centres since the
last Local Plan in particular should be directly considered within the evidence base and
will necessitate a specific policy response within the Local Plan.
2.27 There is a requirement for the Local Plan to recognise and provide for rural business
development in accordance with NPPF Policy E4. This recognises that the rural
economy is a significant contributor to the Borough’s economic success.
2.28 Rural settlements in the north of the Borough have demonstrated that rural and village
locations can support start-ups, hybrid working, local services, advanced
manufacturing, research and development and flexible workspace where they are well
connected or can be made sustainable. The co-location of homes, employment, active
travel, green infrastructure and improved public transport through the planned growth
of current rural settlements in the Borough would reduce the need for longer car
journeys and strengthen local labour markets.
Summary and implications
It is recommended that the Local Plan identifies new allocations to provide for specific
sectors of the modern economy which have seen elevated demand and/or have newly
emerged since the adopted Local Plan was prepared based on an up to date evidence base
which thoroughly re-assesses the suitability, and in particular the market attractiveness, of
the existing supply of employment land in the context of a modern economy and economic
growth opportunities which the Borough benefits from.
It is recommended that the Local Plan explicitly recognises data centres as a key component
of the modern economy in Cheshire East and allocates strategic employment sites to meet
identified needs.
The Local Plan will need to recognise and provide for the development of the rural economy
and businesses within it in accordance with NPPF Policy E4.
Spatial Development Strategy
2.29 There is a need to progress the Local Plan without delay, notwithstanding the pending
preparation of the SDS. As such, the Local Plan will need to allow for circumstances
where the SDS, as a strategic policy document sitting ‘above’ the Local Plan, identifies
and sets out strategic development needs which the Local Plan does not reflect.
2.30 This can be managed through the Local Plan acknowledging the relationship between it
and the SDS and the potential requirement for an early review of the Local Plan to
ensure any misalignment is addressed given the role of a Local Plan as a key delivery
vehicle for the SDS.
2.31 The Tatton Villages proposition provides a corridor-based growth opportunity which
should be considered in both strategies. It links existing settlements and stations with
Tatton Park, Manchester Airport, Knutsford and Greater Manchester and can provide a
coherent basis for planned investment rather than isolated piecemeal developments
without a joined-up strategy for delivering local infrastructure improvements.8
Summary and implications
The Local Plan will need to acknowledge the relationship between it and the emerging SDS
and the potential requirement for an early review to accommodate the SDS.
The Tatton Villages proposition is a strategic, cross-boundary concept requiring
consideration and positive planning for across multiple plan areas, including both the
Cheshire East Local Plan and the SDS to ensure proper planning and delivery of
infrastructure.
Strategic environment assessment
2.32 Tatton Estate supports an integrated assessment of environmental, social, economic,
health and equality effects. Reasonable alternatives should be assessed consistently
and at an appropriate level of detail through the SEA process. In this regard, the
assessment must consider both adverse effects and the capacity of development to
deliver net improvements, including affordable housing, services, employment, public
transport, active travel, accessible green space, habitat creation, sustainable drainage
and heritage enhancement.
2.33 The assessment should also consider cumulative and corridor-wide outcomes. A
coordinated group of allocations under single long-term ownership may deliver
infrastructure and environmental networks that would not be achievable through
fragmented sites assessed in isolation. The SEA must deploy a methodology which
allows such matters to be taken into account.
LPSD Section 4: Baseline information and spatial portrait
2.34 The Local Plan spatial portrait should identify the distinct role of northern Cheshire East
and its functional relationship with Greater Manchester. This area contains strong
strategic assets including the M56, Manchester Airport, the Mid-Cheshire Line,
Knutsford and Tatton Park. It also contains rural settlements where limited growth and
declining services have reduced sustainability over time. These opportunities and
challenges should inform the spatial strategy and evidence base.
Cheshire East in a national context
Size, geographical location and population distribution
2.35 Cheshire East should not be assessed as a self-contained housing or economic market.
The northern part of the Borough has strong cross-boundary relationships with
Trafford and the wider Greater Manchester economy, while the Mid-Cheshire Line
connects communities across Cheshire West, Cheshire East and Greater Manchester.
Evidence on housing, employment, transport and infrastructure should reflect these
functional geographies and be prepared jointly where appropriate.
Connectivity
2.36 The LPSD notes the existing connectivity characteristics of the Borough, including links
into Greater Manchester to the north and international connections through
Manchester Airport. This connectivity means Cheshire East is, in economic and housing9
market terms, strongly linked to and influenced by Greater Manchester particularly,
with this being most acute in the north of the Borough which interfaces with areas of
high housing demand in south Manchester, whilst also being well connected to the city
centre.
2.37 Whilst this context is an influence on the new Local Plan, it is also important that the
Local Plan recognises and is informed by the future potential connectivity context to
the Borough, including Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) and potential tram/train links
between Altrincham, Hale and Manchester Airport via Ashley through an extension of
the Mid-Cheshire Line.
2.38 NPR particularly will have a strategic influence on the Borough’s connectivity with
surrounding settlements and areas of economic activity, impacting on movement
patterns and changing the dynamics of localised demand for homes and employment
space, its relationship with Greater Manchester, Manchester Airport and its
contribution to the economy of the northwest.
2.39 The influence of this future investment is an important consideration in the onward
development of the Local Plan including in respect of the scale of housing and
employment development needed and its distribution.
2.40 The connectivity portrait presented within the LPSD is too focused on motorways and
inter-city rail. It should also recognise the strategic role and unrealised capacity of the
Mid-Cheshire Line and its stations, including Ashley and Mobberley. The line connects
Chester, Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester and provides
access to employment, education, services and visitor destinations.
2.41 The Local Plan should set an outcome of retaining the existing rail services as a
minimum and working towards at least two trains per hour in each direction,
supported by development-generated patronage, station access improvements and
coordinated investment. It should safeguard routes and land required for station
expansion, walking, cycling and interchange improvements. This would advance
policies TR1, TR3 and TR8 of the 2026 NPPF and benefit existing communities along the
whole corridor.
2.42 The portrait should also recognise Tatton Park as a major destination generating
substantial visitor movement through the Borough. Improved public transport and
active travel access to the wider Tatton area would support the visitor economy while
reducing pressure on the highway network.
2.43 In addition, there are planned active travel improvements, such as the Greater Bollin
Trail, that will enhance local connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians and the plan
should recognise and this and similar projects as part of the proposed transport
infrastructure investment.10
Summary and implications
The Local Plan should recognise both Cheshire East’s existing connectivity with Greater
Manchester and Manchester Airport and the transformative potential of future
infrastructure investment, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and enhanced rail and tramtrain connections along the Mid-Cheshire Line. These investments have the potential to
influence housing and employment demand, spatial distribution and sustainable travel
patterns across the Borough.
The Plan should also acknowledge the strategic role of the Mid-Cheshire Line, Tatton Park
and planned active travel improvements, ensuring that growth supports enhanced public
transport, walking and cycling connectivity whilst maximising wider economic, social and
environmental benefits.
The future Local Plan will need to be informed by and shaped around these strategic
investments which will influence development requirements and the spatial strategy which
the Local Plan will need to progress.
Economic contribution
2.44 The acknowledgement of Cheshire East’s economic success story must form a
fundamental foundation of the Local Plan.
2.45 Considerable time was taken up through the Examination of the adopted Local Plan on
the appropriate level of job growth which would be used to underpin the evidencing of
need for both employment and housing.
2.46 The LPSD itself acknowledges that the level of growth planned for - 0.7% growth in jobs
per annum - has been significantly exceeded. Indeed the authority has successfully
achieved average annual job growth of 1.3% (paragraph 5.68 of the LPSD).
2.47 There is every reason, in the context of national and local economic objectives, to
expect such a level of growth to be sustained over this plan period. The implications of
facilitating this to occur and the role of identifying sufficient land to accommodate
related business and population growth is a critical requirement of this plan and should
be approached positively in its preparation.
Summary and implications
The Local Plan should recognise and plan for the recent historic level of economic growth to
be maintained as a minimum. This is reflective of national planning policy and particularly
NPPF Policy E1 which advocates a proactive and opportunity focused strategic approach to
facilitating economic growth through the plan making system.11
Heritage, culture and natural environment
2.48 The spatial portrait should recognise Tatton Park's strategic importance as a visitor
destination receiving approximately 700,000 to 800,000 visitors in a typical year, as
recorded by the Council. The Local Plan should consider how housing, visitor
movement, sustainable transport, active travel, green infrastructure and the rural
economy interact across the wider Tatton area.
2.49 Tatton Estate supports a landscape-led approach which protects designated assets,
heritage settings, ancient woodland and high-value habitats while securing measurable
nature recovery and public access. Agricultural land should be assessed according to
quality, function and management rather than through a blanket assumption that all
countryside performs the same role. Coordinated growth can retain field patterns,
hedgerows and productive land, create connected habitats and support farming and
rural enterprise.
Summary and implications
The role and status of Tatton Park as a major visitor destination should be recognised in the
Local Plan spatial portrait alongside the potential for effective delivery of housing and
infrastructure interact with a growing and diverse economy which is protected and nurtured
as part of a bespoke strategy for this part of the Borough.
Cheshire East’s diversity
Settlements and rural-urban composition
2.50 The LPSD acknowledges that the Borough has a significant rural character with 18% of
residents living in rural areas, albeit also contains a number of larger towns.
2.51 Its rural character makes Cheshire East an attractive place to live and invest. However,
its rural context presents a number of challenges in securing a long-term sustainable
future for Cheshire East. Of note, the long-term viability and sustainability of a number
of the Borough’s rural settlements are under threat. Housing affordability, connectivity
by sustainable modes of transport and poor quality or unsustainable service provision
are common issues in the Borough’s rural settlements.
2.52 This context to the Borough’s rural settlements is an important consideration in the
onward development of the Local Plan. The Local Plan, and where appropriate
Neighbourhood Plans, provide an opportunity to respond positively to these threats
and put the Borough’s villages onto a more sustainable footing.
2.53 This requires a concerted focus on the steps which the Local Plan needs to take to
achieve this, including through supporting appropriate levels of growth in settlements
and seeking opportunities for an enhancement in service provision. A strategy which
directs almost all growth to towns risks reinforcing declining services, limited housing
choice, car dependency and demographic imbalance in villages.
2.54 This concept goes beyond historic approaches of seeing rural settlements as the least
sustainable locations for growth but rather towards acknowledging that they exist as12
existing concentrations of development, are a defining feature of the Borough’s
character and need to be allowed to evolve and change to achieve a sustainable future.
2.55 This principle is supported by NPPF Policy HO6 which supports the allocation of sites
for development in Local Plans ‘…which will support and enhance the vitality of rural
communities and enable villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support
local services.’
2.56 A coordinated approach towards the managed growth of the Borough’s villages is
needed through the Local Plan. This should involve a recognition of their inter-related
nature (within defined geographies) where catchment areas for localised service
provision overlap and which can inform a multi-village strategic masterplan where a
coordinated growth plan, and service enhancement framework, can address some of
their existing sustainability threats in the spirit of NPPF Policy HO6.
2.57 The Council should assess villages individually and as connected clusters reflecting their
inter-reliance. The Tatton Villages proposition applies this principle through distinct but
connected roles for Ashley, Mobberley, Rostherne and Bucklow Hill, linked to
Knutsford and the Mid-Cheshire transport corridor.
Summary and implications
The Local Plan will need to take proactive steps to secure the long-term sustainability of the
Borough’s rural settlements, including fully engaging in a consideration of their current
status and long-term threats and what they need to thrive in a modern context. This will
require planned growth and management to deliver the services and infrastructure they
require. This includes a consideration of how villages interact in terms of service provision
and how, in this context, a multi-village approach across defined geographies can achieve a
more sustainable future for the Borough’s rural settlements.
Demographic mix
2.58 The age and demographic profile of the Borough has direct implications for the Local
Plan’s spatial strategy, housing mix and infrastructure policies and requirements. Of
note, the Local Plan should increase the supply of smaller, accessible and adaptable
homes, later-living accommodation, affordable homes and family housing in locations
with access to services and public transport. This would allow older residents to move
to suitable accommodation within their communities and release larger homes, while
enabling younger households and local workers to remain or return.
2.59 Housing mix should be linked to measurable demographic outcomes, including the
proportion of working-age residents, affordability, accessibility standards and access to
healthcare and community facilities. Tatton Estate's village visions provide for a broad
mix of tenures and typologies and, at Ashley, potential healthcare and school provision
located within a walkable local centre.13
Summary and implications
The demographic context to and needs of the Borough are an important influence on the
Local Plan. This goes beyond housing mix but informs the site selection process. The
Borough’s needs are diverse in respect of future housing provision and it is important that
the Local Plan engages in a proper consideration of what can be achieved in terms of
housing provision and supporting infrastructure in respect of individual sites to best respond
to this context.
LPSD Section 5: Scope of the new Local Plan
Local Plan period
2.60 Policy PM2 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to look beyond the specific defined plan
period stating that Local Plans should reflect ‘…longer term expectations extending
beyond the plan period where appropriate, including for any broad locations for growth
and regeneration identified in the spatial development strategy, and any specific
strategic site proposals’.
2.61 Clearly in the case of Cheshire East the Local Plan is intended to be adopted before the
first SDS for the region, and so won’t benefit from being informed by the SDS, however
PM2 is clear that a Local Plan should consider the period beyond the Local Plan’s stated
timeframe notwithstanding.
2.62 There is a practical imperative to this. Not least, the most sustainable strategy for the
future growth of the Borough may be to seek to allocate one or more new settlements
and major urban extensions, the full potential of which may not be realised over the 15
year plan period.
2.63 In this context, it may be appropriate for the Local Plan to allocate such sites reflective
of their delivery over 25+ years including on the basis of expected delivery beyond the
15 year plan period. The alternative of limiting the allocation to what is deliverable in
the plan period, with no provision for the years after, would result in such options not
being capable of performing favourably, when considered against alternatives, as the
numerical yield during the plan period only may indicate a scale of development which
is not reflective of a sustainable proposal (i.e. too small in the context of a new
settlement proposal) with the benefits as a sustainable option only becoming apparent
over the long term.
2.64 This shorter-term outlook is thus likely to result in a reliance on smaller scale,
piecemeal expansion of existing settlements, putting these under stress and pressure
without the benefit of a strategic plan for improved service provision which planning
for new settlements or large urban extensions provides.
2.65 Policy HO4 of NPPF supports longer term strategic planning in encouraging planning for
strategic scale sites which, by implication, will require the Local Plan to consider the
years beyond the plan period, notwithstanding its initial focus may be over only 15
years.14
2.66 Further, this longer term outlook is supported by Policy GB4 of NPPF which requires a
consideration of the need to allocate safeguarded land when undertaking a Green Belt
review for the purposes of minimising the need for a further Green Belt review when
coming to review the Local Plan.
2.67 Again, whilst not itself directing that a plan period should extend beyond 15 years, this
reinforces a need for the Local Plan to address some development requirements postplan period and make provision for these, where appropriate, in this plan. This is
important in enabling a seamless transition from the emerging Local Plan to the next
iteration and ensuring, in accordance with NPPF Policy PM2, the Local Plan is grounded
in longer term expectations and objectives.
Summary and implications
Whilst the plan period itself may be limited to 15 years, the strategic context to Cheshire
East and its significant development needs, will require a consideration of strategic-scale
sites and for the Local Plan to look considerably beyond this to effectively plan for the
Borough’s long-term growth.
In the absence of an SDS, and in the context of longer-term infrastructure investment and
the anticipated role of new settlements and strategic employment sites in accommodating
notably elevated requirements for housing and commercial floorspace, planning over a
longer plan-period will be of significant importance for the Local Plan.
Creating a vision and objectives
2.68 The vision should commit Cheshire East to meeting identified development needs
through well-designed, infrastructure-led and climate-resilient places which improve
outcomes for existing and future residents. It should recognise the complementary
roles of towns, villages and cross-boundary transport corridors in being able to support
growth requirements in a truly sustainable manner.
2.69 Measurable outcomes should include: delivery against housing need and the five-year
supply requirement; affordable, accessible and specialist housing; jobs and
employment floorspace; the proportion of homes with convenient access to daily
services; public transport frequency and station accessibility; walking, wheeling and
cycling connectivity; delivery of education, healthcare and community facilities;
publicly accessible green space; biodiversity and nature-recovery outcomes;
operational and embodied carbon; flood and water resilience; heritage outcomes;
infrastructure delivery against agreed triggers; and the demographic and geographic
reach of engagement.
2.70 We set out above in relation to section 4 of the LPSD two central issues which the Local
Plan will need to consider and which should be incorporated in the Plan’s vision and
objectives, these being:
• The need to take a proactive and positive approach to address the challenges
and issues faced by a number of rural settlements in Cheshire East and enable
a sustainable future for these communities with a focus on address15
affordability challenge and service accessibility and sustainability. The vision
should expressly reflect NPPF policy HO6 by supporting rural communities and
enabling villages to grow and thrive where this sustains or improves local
services.
• Shaping the Local Plan strategy around its future connectivity context,
including NPR and other planned investment, and the influence this will have
on the relationship of the northern part of the Borough with key economic
areas outside of Cheshire East and housing and employment development
markets and demand dynamics.
Summary and implications
A holistic vision and set of objectives will need to be defined which reflect the ambition to
achieve the Borough’s development needs but which recognise the opportunity to and
imperative of looking behind these to deliver and optimise social and environmental
outcomes. This will require a focus on accessibility, recreation, green infrastructure, the
needs of rural and other communities and achieving significant environmental gains. Further
the Local Plan will need to consider and plan for the Borough’s future context, including the
influence of NPR, which should be captured and reflected in its vision and objectives.
Planning for growth
2.71 The growth strategy should pursue economic, social and environmental objectives in
mutually supportive ways. Infrastructure capacity must not be treated only as a fixed
constraint: the assessment should identify what improvements are required, whether
development can fund or support them and how they can be phased. This is central to
the NPPF's vision-led approach.
2.72 The LPSD acknowledges the significant need for housing, calculated using the standard
method. However, it is critical that assembling the evidence to inform both the housing
and employment land requirement that the Council fully considers how the Plan will
sustain the strong economic success achieved to date. This accords with the NPPF (see
above including Policies E1 and HO2(3).
2.73 The Council, where evidenced, must include consideration of a housing requirement
which exceeds the minimum standard method and ensures that the proposed supply
of employment land will meet the needs of all segments of the local modern economy.
This aligns with the commitment articulated in the Cheshire East Plan to unlock
economic prosperity.
2.74 Tatton Estate's growth locations are predicated on improvement. They combine homes
with rail and bus opportunities, active travel, education and healthcare provision,
employment, public open space, biodiversity enhancement and community facilities.
Their single ownership provides a basis for comprehensive planning and coordinated
delivery rather than fragmented development.16
Summary and implications
Sustaining and exceeding historic economic growth should be a clear intent of the Local Plan
with growth options considered in the context of their ability to support this and to provide
the facilitating infrastructure needed for this purpose. The Local Plan should also consider
the need to plan for more housing than the standard methodology derived minimum and
the strategic influences, future changes and opportunities which may inform this.
Identifying and assessing sites
Housing and employment sites
2.75 We have set out above, in relation to Green Belt policy considered in section 3 of the
LPSD, the importance of a proper and correct application of national planning policy in
relation to Green Belt when identifying and appraising sites and particularly ensuring
that Green Belt characteristics are not overweighted in this process relative to other
sustainability criteria.
2.76 This is central to ensuring the most sustainable sites are selected for allocation, when
considered in the round, and that the outcome of the site selection process is reflective
of the intended spatial distribution of development, rather than this being an
uncontrolled consequence.
2.77 The latter is a common outcome where a narrow objective of minimising Green Belt
release at all costs and then limiting such releases to sites which make the least Green
Belt contribution is pursued. Such an approach would be at odds with the NPPF which
is clear that priority is given to non-Green Belt sites (and within the context of Green
Belt sites, to grey belt sites) only to the extent that this is compatible with achieving
the most sustainable outcomes when considered in the round.
2.78 We would raise two further points in relation to the site appraisal and selection
process at this stage:
1) It is important that sites are considered in the context of the development
proposal which are presented and achievable in each case. Whilst a
comparison of sites in their baseline (undeveloped) state is important to
ascertain basic sustainable characteristics, allocation selections should be
informed by what is achievable or proposed within a site, which may generate
different conclusions as to what represents the most sustainable allocation
options.
As an example, site size may have an influence on the ability to fund new
infrastructure provision (including on site provision) which may change the
conclusion of an assessment when considering one site over another.
Alternatively, a developer’s proposition may include specific additional onsite
benefits, such as new recreation facilities, which support the wider community
and which again should have an influence on how a site is scored (as long as
such commitments were to be incorporated into the allocation policy as a
specific requirement of the development).17
To this end, the site appraisal process will be required to be carried out at a
level of granularity which ensures critical points of difference, such as those
presented above, are able to be considered and weighted as appropriate in
the appraisal process. The alternative of a more crude appraisal process which
considers sites independently of such detail, may result in less sustainable
development proposals being selected for allocation.
2) In a similar vein, sites should be appraised in the context of what else is
being considered and potentially allocated locally. Sites can work together to,
for example, fund off site infrastructure improvements, but this can only be
revealed, as a form of mitigation or localised benefit, when the scenario of two
or more sites coming forward together is considered.
Again, and reflective of this, the site appraisal methodology needs to have a
sufficient degree of sophistication built into it to consider how outcomes, in
terms of a site’s performance, may change in different scenarios.
Summary and implications
A site assessment methodology will need to be adopted which is sufficiently detailed to
enable the most sustainable development options to be identified. This includes a
consideration of the development proposals which each site can and are proposed to
accommodate, not just the pre-development circumstances of the site, and a consideration
of how sites may work together to deliver, in combination, the infrastructure requirements
of a defined geography. Overweighting of Green Belt characteristics should be avoided with
a requirement to consider the sustainability of sites and proposals on a broader basis to
ensure the most sustainable sites, informed by a well-developed spatial strategy, are
selected for allocation.
Green Belt
2.79 Our comments in relation to the influence and application of Green Belt policy in the
assessment of candidate sites for allocation is set out above.
2.80 Tatton Estate supports the borough-wide Green Belt assessment and the sequential
approach in NPPF policy GB3. The assessment should follow Annex E, use sufficiently
small assessment areas and consider physical containment, settlement form and
transport corridors. It should identify grey belt without conflating Green Belt purpose
with separate landscape, heritage or ecological designations.
2.81 The Council should then assess whether potential releases would promote a
sustainable pattern of development, including the ability to deliver affordable housing,
necessary infrastructure and accessible green space under policy GB8. Land close to
existing settlements and the Mid-Cheshire Line should be evaluated alongside planned
service improvements and the capacity for comprehensive development. Tatton
Estate's evidence indicates that relevant parts of its promoted land may meet the grey
belt definition, but the Council should reach its own conclusion through the published
methodology.18
Summary and implications
Tatton Estate supports a Borough-wide Green Belt assessment in accordance with NPPF.
This should inform the selection of sites based on an appropriate methodology reflective of
NPPF. The relative benefits and sustainability of sites should be considered in the round with
Green Belt status and contribution being one informant of this, albeit wider considerations
in relation to site characteristics and benefits arising will be important to weigh
appropriately in the process.
Settlement hierarchy
2.82 Comments are provided in relation to the spatial distribution of development, at a
strategic level, below.
2.83 That issue has a interrelationship with the question of the settlement hierarchy. A
settlement hierarchy is typically a reflection of the current situation in relation to the
size and status of each settlement and the service provision within it. However it is
important that this is not used to prevent a proper consideration of spatial options,
and site selection which don’t directly reflect a baseline settlement hierarchy having
regard to existing infrastructure and scale.
2.84 To this end, a settlement hierarchy should not become a mechanism which locks
settlements into their present condition to determine future growth capacity. The
methodology should consider both current sustainability and the realistic postdevelopment position where infrastructure and services are secured through an
allocation. It should assess access to services across connected groups of settlements
and recognise the role of public transport and active travel improvements.
2.85 The assumption that the hierarchy is fixed and the status quo should be maintained
should not be automatically carried forward for plan making purposes. In expanding on
this issue we would highlight three important points:
• There is a need to consider the spatial distribution of development at a
strategic level particularly in Cheshire East since, in broad terms, the northern
part of the Borough has a very different economic function to the south owing
to its relationship with and connectivity to Greater Manchester and future
planned infrastructure investment. This will have an influence on the question
of how much growth is directed towards the north versus the south, to some
degree irrespective of the size and status of existing settlements within these
two locations.
• Set against this context, Policy HO4 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to
consider the allocation of strategic sites, including new settlements, to meet
development needs. This reflects that such sites, often based on the principle
of pooling needs and meeting them in a smaller number of locations, may be
the most sustainable way of planning for an area’s growth. This provides the
advantage of achieving a critical mass of development in a single location19
where infrastructure can be properly planned and funded and where a diverse
range of housing options can be provided.
Commonly strategic sites represent holistically planned new communities,
albeit often representing a major expansion to a smaller existing settlement
which means some road and infrastructure networks are already in place to
build upon, supporting practical delivery (particularly in early years). Clearly in
such instances the development is going beyond meeting the needs of that
specific settlement and would involve a level of growth which wouldn’t
directly be supported through a narrow application of a settlement hierarchy
as a direct indicator of a settlement’s ability to accommodate growth in a
sustainable manner.
To this end, a settlement hierarchy must be seen in its context and should not
be used to inform a consideration of strategic scale sites which may be
assessed pursuant to Policy HO4 of the NPPF. Any settlement hierarchy which
is presented in the Local Plan should be reflective of the Local Plan’s strategy,
including intended development within that settlement. We would caution
against its narrow use in appraising the relative sustainability of various
development options for the reasons outlined.
• Finally, reflective of the points made above, it is important that the Local Plan
is based on a detailed consideration of what rural settlements need to achieve
a sustainable future. We set out above common threats affecting such
settlements, including in relation to affordability and service accessibility and
sustainability and, in this context, the principle of supporting their managed
growth, on a targeted and planned basis, to address these. This may support,
in some cases, a level of development which is greater than what has gone
before to address these sustainability threats.
Again, in this context we therefore would caution against a narrow use of a
settlement hierarchy in providing direction as to the level of development
which individual settlements should be permitted to accommodate. The
settlement hierarchy shouldn’t therefore be established as a limiting influence
in respect of planned growth targeted at putting each settlement on a more
sustainable footing through the Local Plan itself.
Summary and implications
A baseline settlement hierarchy should not be used as means of dictating the ability of
settlements to accommodate growth in a sustainable manner.
The Local Plan should consider both current sustainability and the realistic postdevelopment position where infrastructure and services are secured through an allocation.
It should assess access to services across connected groups of settlements and recognise the20
role of public transport and active travel improvements. This may justify allocating sites for
development which do not reflect a settlement’s current status in the hierarchy but reflects
that a settlement’s position in the hierarchy can evolve in the context of the delivery of the
Local Plan. The Local Plan exists to manage this change.
Spatial distribution
2.86 We agree with the proposition that a range of factors will need to be considered in
arriving at a proposed spatial distribution of development, both housing and
employment, across the district.
2.87 It is recommended that the Local Plan acknowledge evidence of the existence of
distinct housing market geographies. This is critical in the development of a spatial
distribution strategy and the progression of the apportionment of the requirement for
new homes and employment floorspace.
2.88 This must be underpinned by an appreciation of the drivers of need at a localised level
and the potential of settlements to sustainably plan for growth which responds to
evidenced needs. As we have identified this must recognise a forward-looking
settlement hierarchy that factors in the potential implications of investment in
infrastructure and is not just based on a current-day static position. This will ensure
that the Local Plan does not seek to displace needs and thereby constrain development
and economic growth potential.
2.89 We consider that factors relating to need, demand and planned infrastructure
investment should form a critical first gateway for apportioning the overall
requirement. This should be done prior to a consideration of potential supply
constraints, with this mitigating a risk that needs are not met where they arise in the
context of an appreciation of local market geographies.
2.90 A consideration of underlying information strongly affirms, for example, in this regard
that a significant proportion of need should be accommodated in the north of the
authority, i.e. broadly the former Macclesfield district. This recognises that:
• Circa 40% of stock across the borough is in this area (the former Macclesfield
district). Where existing stock forms the baseline for the standard method
calculation this is an important initial foundation from which to build. Using the
need for 2,530 homes per annum across the borough as referenced in the
scoping consultation (paragraph 3.4), simply apportioning on this basis would
suggest the need to provide for over 1,000 homes per annum in the northern
part of the borough.
• House prices in this area typically stand some 30% above the average for the
authority (2021 – 2025)1. Growth in house prices across many of the settlements
in the north of the authority has outpaced regional averages, creating worsening
affordability challenges for young people to remain close to family or to live in
proximity to employment. Analysis of 2024, house price data, for example
1 HM Land Registry (2024) Price paid data. Averages based on five years’ worth of sales21
showed that the postcode area of Knutsford (WA16) was the most expensive
place to buy a house in the North West, with the neighbouring postcode area
(WA15) – which covers Altrincham, Ashley, Hale, Hale Barns, Timperley and
Ringway - the next highest average.2 With comparative affordability the other
key component of the standard method calculation this would suggest that
proportionate provision should be elevated in this part of Cheshire East to
ensure affordability issues are proactively addressed.
• The area includes more than half of the jobs within Cheshire East (51%)3 but the
working-age population of this area has, despite proximity to significant
employment opportunities, slightly declined between 2011 – 2021. Recognising
the opportunity to sustainably accommodate jobs and homes again further
reinforces the importance of providing a higher level of homes in the northern
parts of the borough.
2.91 Tatton Estate strongly supports the Councils identification that a range of options in
the distribution of development should be considered to sustainably accommodate
needs and that this should include a distributed village-renewal option linked to public
transport and existing settlement networks. The above drivers of spatial need must,
however, form a critical early consideration in this process.
2.92 The LPSD is correct to acknowledge the scale of the borough and the diversity of its
towns and villages. It is similarly important to recognise the comparative role that
settlements have in the context of their communities, relationship with other
proximate settlements and importantly larger economic centres, including Greater
Manchester in the north and Stoke-on-Trent in the south.
2.93 These economic relationships, intrinsically linked to connectivity and proximity, mean
that not only is there a breadth of settlements across the authority but there are at
least two separate functioning Housing Market Areas (HMA). This was recognised
within the adopted Local Plan identifying ‘two functional sub-market areas’, with the
southern part of the administrative area ‘strongly linked to North Staffordshire and
Stoke-on-Trent’ unlike the northern part which is ‘closely linked with Greater
Manchester’4.
2.94 This was a conclusion of the Housing Development Study produced in 2015, which
sought inter alia to ‘identify functional housing markets’5. It reviewed a range of
indicators, many of which showed Cheshire East to be effectively split in two, with the
boundary between the two broad rental market areas (BRMAs) that cover Cheshire
East – shown at Figure 2.1 below – recommended as a suitable boundary between the
two HMAs6
2 https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/most-expensive-place-buy-house-28335695
3 ONS (2024) Business Register and Employment Survey
4 Cheshire East Council (July 2017) Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, paragraph 2.14
5 ORS (June 2015) Cheshire East Housing Development Study 2015, section 2
6
Ibid, paragraph 2.3022
Figure 2.1: Broad Rental Market Areas as the Basis of Local HMAs in Cheshire East
Source: ORS
2.95 As the evidence informing the adopted Local Plan was clear to acknowledge, the
northern parts of the authority have important functional relationships arising from
connectivity to southern parts of Greater Manchester. The commitment to update the
informing housing market evidence through the LPSD is supported and it is important
that this re-visits the operation of local housing markets within the authority where it is
anticipated that the distinct nature of the markets in the north and south are likely to
have further increased.
2.96 In this context it is noted that the current Planning Practice Guidance continues to
encourage analysis of migration flows, to determine ‘the extent to which people move
house within an area’7. The best available data, from the 2021 Census, shows a
relatively high containment of moves within the southern part of Cheshire East in
particular. Almost two thirds (64%) of those moving from an address in the area during
the year to March 2021 were still living in the southern part of Cheshire East at that
point. They were notably over 11 times more likely to be doing so than living in the
northern area, whose own movers were also around five times more likely to have
7
Ibid
Boundary of Cheshire East
South Cheshire BRMA
East Cheshire BRMA23
stayed in the area than relocated to the south. Destinations beyond Cheshire East also
differ, with those moving from the north more likely to settle in Greater Manchester
and those moving from the south generally favouring Cheshire West and Chester or
Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Figure 2.2: Containment of Moves from Northern and Southern Cheshire East
(2020-21)
Source: Census 2021; Turley analysis
2.97 The PPG also suggests that ‘contextual data such as travel to work areas’ can provide
‘information about the areas in which people move without changing other aspects of
their lives’8. The latest official Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) – produced by the Office
for National Statistics – are still based on the 2011 Census, which was covered by the
Housing Development Study, but a more up-to-date position can be developed using
data from the 2021 Census. While this is unlikely to be fully representative, having
been undertaken during the COVID-19 pandemic when individuals were instructed to
work from home wherever possible, it is still considered to be of some value in offering
incomparable detail on commuting patterns.
2.98 It shows that some 63% of the working residents of southern Cheshire East travelled to
workplaces in the same area, around seven times as many as worked in the north (9%).
Fewer – circa 53% – of those living in the north also worked there, with others being
notably more likely to travel to Stockport or Manchester than to southern Cheshire
East.
8
Ibid
7,250
1,507
700 500 425
11,711
1,030 698 399 315
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
Northern Cheshire East
Southern Cheshire East
Stockport
Manchester
Cheshire West and Chester
Southern Cheshire East
Northern Cheshire East
Cheshire West and Chester
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Liverpool
Movers from Northern Cheshire East Movers from Southern Cheshire East
Moving individuals
Destination of respective movers24
Figure 2.3: Variation in the Place of Work for Residents of Northern and Southern
Cheshire East (2021)
Source: Census 2021; Turley analysis
2.99 The need to acknowledge functional relationships with areas to the north also
recognises, in the context of the northern HMA, the continued growth and success of
Greater Manchester, and specifically economic hubs around Manchester Airport,
Stockport town centre and Manchester city centre have served to strengthen the
importance of a distinct housing market geography with existing settlements in the
northern part of the authority. This includes the larger settlements such as
Macclesfield and Knutsford but also smaller settlements in close proximity such as
Mobberley, Wilmslow and Handforth.
2.100 The scale of economic investment in proximity to these northern parts of the authority
is demonstrated, for example, by ongoing Manchester airport transformation
programme, which has seen circa £1.3bn spent on Terminal 2 and is estimated to
generate an additional 16,400 jobs by 2040. Furthermore, the employment
concentrated in this location is not limited to the airport alone, as the nearby Airport
City is identified as a key new economic asset attracting global occupiers and
investment within Places for Everyone9 (PfE). This has the potential to deliver 500,000
9
Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford,
Tameside, Trafford and Wigan – 2022 to 2039 (adopted 21 March 2024)
1%
1%
3%
5%
1%
2%
7%
9%
63%
1%
4%
0%
1%
10%
10%
3%
53%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Warrington
Trafford
Newcastle-under-Lyme
Stoke-on-Trent
Stockport
Manchester
Cheshire West and Chester
Northern Cheshire East
Southern Cheshire East
Proportion of working residents
Place of work
Residents of Northern Cheshire East Residents of Southern Cheshire East25
sqm of office, logistics, hotel and advanced manufacturing space, creating around
16,000 jobs in the next 10-15 years. Planned investment to enhance accessibility and
connectivity to the airport – including the extension of the Metrolink, development of
a new train station and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) – will only serve to increase its
importance.
2.101 As we note above, the continued operation of separate and distinct local housing
market areas must be a consideration when developing a settlement hierarchy and
appreciating the current and future role and function of settlements.
2.102 Indeed, the adoption of a future or forward looking appreciation of comparative
settlements roles within a hierarchy will be of significant importance for this Local Plan.
Where it is agreed, as the Council has considered in its emerging evidence base to date,
that settlements should be categorised on the basis of comparative scale and existing
infrastructure it is important that this categorisation also takes into account their
future capacity to sustainably accommodate further development, including in
accordance with the intended distribution of development across Cheshire East at a
strategic level – e.g. a north-south split.
2.103 Future settlement capacity potential and this not being defined by the baseline, is also
reflected, for example, in the NPPF’s support for sustainable development in
settlements with comparatively strong rail access. Such an approach recognises the
potential of infrastructure investment to facilitate growth where settlements are
sustainably located within proximity of rail stations notwithstanding their existing size
and status in a hierarchy which reflects the baseline.
Summary and implications
The Local Plan’s spatial strategy should be informed by Cheshire East’s distinct housing
market areas, the distribution of housing and employment need, and the capacity of
settlements and strategic locations to sustainably accommodate growth including via
development-based investment in infrastructure. The underlying evidence supports
directing a significant proportion of growth to the north of the borough, reflecting
affordability pressures, economic activity and strong links to Greater Manchester.
The approach to a consideration of spatial distribution should also include options for the
growth and expansion of existing villages as a sustainable means of meeting the Borough’s
significant development needs and achieving their renewal and revitalisation.
Development in the Countryside
2.104 Local countryside policies should not duplicate national decision-making policies or
prevent plan-led allocations and sustainable village extensions. They should support
rural businesses, tourism, farming diversification, community facilities, active travel
and infrastructure where proposals are appropriately located and designed.
2.105 The distinction between unplanned isolated development and comprehensive growth
physically related to an existing settlement is important. The Tatton Villages
submissions are designed as extensions or renewal of existing communities, with26
infrastructure, landscape and movement frameworks and should be assessed through
the spatial strategy and allocation process rather than treated as isolated countryside
development.
Housing
2.106 The commitment to prepare a Housing Need Assessment (LPSD paragraph 5.31) is
strongly supported. It is critical that the authority understands the evidenced need for
different types and tenures of housing, including housing required to meet specific
needs.
2.107 In the context of a growing local economy, noting the LPSD’s reference to the authority
successfully achieving average annual job growth of 1.3% (paragraph 5.68), it is evident
there will be a significant and sustained need and demand for housing to
accommodate a growing workforce. This will include family-sized housing as well as
housing offering the opportunity for younger households to remain and re-locate into
the authority.
2.108 Evidence of the sustained need for larger family housing is apparent when looking at
the historic profile of the size of homes delivered within the authority. This shows a
sustained and growing provision of larger (3 and 4+ bedroom) homes, signifying a
strong demand for family-sized housing.
Figure 2.4: Size of home completed annually 2010 – 2025
Source: Cheshire East Annual Monitoring Reports
2.109 For comparable, context it is noted that in neighbouring Greater Manchester the
recently adopted Places for Everyone Plan (PfE), similarly recognises the demand for a
breadth of sizes of new homes. Whilst stating the importance of ensuring the delivery
of a diverse mix of values and tenures of new housing the PfE is clear highlight the
importance of attracting and retaining skilled workers to ensure the future
competitiveness of Greater Manchester to compete for investment. It confirms a key
aim to ‘boost the supply of well designed, adaptable new homes with appropriate
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4+ bed27
access to private space…to increase the options for skilled workers looking to move into
or within our area.’10
2.110 However, continued issues of affordability will also be an important consideration. The
evidence informing the adopted Plan identified a need for 1,401 affordable homes per
annum, with just over 60% of this need being for affordable (social) rented homes11. In
comparison to this need the delivery of affordable housing has fallen considerably
short, with affordable housing only accounting for circa 24% of all homes delivered
over the period 2020/21 to 2024/25 and equating to an average annual delivery of 581
affordable homes per year12.
2.111 The consequence of supply falling short of need is reflected in the fact that that on 31
March 2025 there were 7,847 households on the waiting list in Cheshire East13, with
this scale of need being relatively consistent over the last 10 years.
2.112 It is recommended that the Local Plan take full account of the evidenced breadth of
housing need in the distribution of housing and the typologies of sites identified to
meet needs. This should recognise the informing drivers of housing need as well as the
comparative viability of sites. In this context, for example it is important to understand
the geographic relationship between growing employment opportunities and the
comparative need for homes to meet the needs of working age households, including
families, as well as the capacity of greenfield (and potentially greenbelt) land to viably
support higher proportions of affordable housing in the stronger market areas of the
authority.
Summary and implications
The preparation of a robust Housing Need Assessment is strongly supported to ensure that
the Local Plan responds to the full range of identified housing needs, including family
housing, affordable housing and homes to meet specific needs. In the context of sustained
economic growth and rising employment, there will be a continuing need for a broad mix of
housing, particularly larger family homes and housing that enables younger and working-age
households to live close to employment opportunities.
The Local Plan should also address longstanding affordability pressures, recognising the
significant shortfall in affordable housing delivery relative to identified need and the
persistently high levels of housing need across the Borough. Housing requirements should
therefore be distributed and planned in a way that reflects both economic growth and local
housing market needs, whilst making effective use of sites capable of delivering a wide
range of housing types and tenures, including affordable housing in the authority’s stronger
market areas.
10 Places for Everyone Plan (2024), paragraph 7.28
11
Cheshire East SHMA Update 2013, arc4, paragraphs 6.14 and 6.16
12 Cheshire East Annual Monitoring Report 2024/25, Table 11.21
13
It is noted that these figures exclude existing council tenants seeking a transfer, but include existing tenants of
other social housing providers seeking a transfer.28
Affordable Housing
2.113 Tatton Estate supports an ambitious but deliverable affordable housing policy aligned
with NPPF policies HO5 and GB8.
2.114 Affordable housing should be integrated throughout developments. Delivery and
occupation should be secured through clear phasing.
2.115 Tatton Estate's visions are based on mixed-tenure communities and compliance with
the applicable affordable housing policy. The ability of site’s to support the provision of
affordable housing should be given appropriate weight in considering site allocations.
Housing Mix
2.116 Policies relating to housing mix should respond to ageing, affordability and changing
household size while enabling mixed and intergenerational communities. Larger
allocations should include a range of dwelling sizes, tenures and typologies and should
provide accessible and adaptable homes consistent with NPPF policy HO5 and Building
Regulations M4(2) and M4(3) requirements.
2.117 The policy should support moving within a community over a lifetime. Smaller and
later-living homes can allow older residents to downsize locally, releasing larger homes,
while affordable and family housing can retain working-age households. Housing mix
should be considered with access to local centres, public transport, green space and
healthcare.
Self build and custom built housing
2.118 Tatton Estate supports an appropriate contribution to self-build and custom-build
demand within a diverse housing portfolio. Requirements should be based on robust
demand evidence, allow for serviced plots within larger allocations and include delivery
mechanisms which prevent plots remaining undeveloped and delaying wider
infrastructure.
Housing diversification and providing for small and medium sized sites
2.119 Tatton Estate supports a diverse portfolio of site sizes in accordance with NPPF policy
HO6. Small and medium sites can widen choice and support proportionate village
renewal, but they cannot alone meet the borough's housing need or deliver all
strategic infrastructure. The spatial strategy must also allocate larger, comprehensively
planned sites capable of supporting schools, healthcare, public transport, employment,
utilities and major green infrastructure.
2.120 The Estate's portfolio demonstrates this complementary approach: Rostherne,
Mobberley and Bucklow Hill offer smaller-scale village growth, while Ashley and
Knutsford can accommodate larger mixed-use propositions with more substantial
infrastructure investment.
Employment and the economy
2.121 As the LPSD correctly identifies, an Economic Development Needs Assessment and
Employment Land Review must form an important component of the evidence base.
This will need to establish the quantitative and qualitative need for employment land,
recognising as required by the NPPF different facets of the modern economy.29
2.122 It is noted that the scoping consultation references the residual supply of some 375 ha
of employment land across the borough. It is expected that the evidence base will
thoroughly consider the extent to which this supply is attractive to the market and can
accommodate the needs of different sectors of the market.
2.123 It is also important that, in accordance with a consideration of the spatial distribution
of provision, an understanding of the location of this supply in the context of spatial
drivers, economic changes and market dynamics is considered. For example, it is
observed that despite perceived high market demand in the northern parts of the
Borough for commercial development the Council’s monitoring report (2024/25)
suggests that take-up of employment land over the plan period to date has been very
low in the northern parts of the borough (circa 17 ha). This implies a potential shortfall
of market attractive land in this part of the borough.
Summary and implications
The preparation of an Employment Land Review is supported to ensure that future
employment land requirements reflect the needs of the modern economy. The evidence
should assess not only the quantity of land available but also its market attractiveness and
suitability for different sectors.
The Local Plan should also consider the geographic distribution of employment land,
particularly whether low take-up in the north of the borough reflects a shortage of
attractive and deliverable sites despite strong market demand.
Town Centres
2.124 Tatton Estate supports the town-centre-first approach, but the hierarchy should also
recognise local centres, village shops and community hubs which meet every day
needs, support the sustainability of settlements and reduce travel demand. New or
renewed facilities within planned village growth would complement, not compete
with, Knutsford and other town centres. Policies should allow proportionate facilities
where they support rural vitality, walkability and the 15-minute community principle.
Transport and infrastructure
2.125 The need for the Local Plan to consider the transport implications of the Local Plan and
present a strategy for meeting the wider infrastructure requirements associated with
the planned level of growth is recognised in the LPSD.
2.126 Transport should be used to shape the spatial strategy from the outset, in accordance
with NPPF policies TR1 and TR3. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan should not simply
identify highway mitigation after sites are selected. It should define outcomes for
mode share, accessibility and service provision and coordinate land use with rail, bus,
walking, wheeling and cycling investment and positively influence this.
2.127 The Mid-Cheshire Line should be treated as a strategic corridor. The Local Plan should
protect the current service as a minimum and establish a partnership objective of at
least two trains per hour in each direction, together with improved station access,
walking and cycling connections, interchange and passenger facilities. This requires
early engagement with Northern, Network Rail, the Combined Authority, Cheshire30
West and Chester, Trafford and Greater Manchester. Growth at Ashley and Mobberley
can increase the station catchments and patronage needed to support the case for
investment.
2.128 Rostherne and Bucklow Hill should be sought to be connected to Ashley, Mobberley,
Knutsford and wider services through an integrated bus proposition and active travel
network. Existing and proposed Public Rights of Way, the Sustrans Regional Cycle
Route and Greater Bollin Trail should form a connected movement framework,
including access towards Tatton Park.
2.129 Social and utility infrastructure must be planned in parallel. We have set out
throughout this representation that the ability of sites to individually or collectively
secure infrastructure improvements in order to accommodate development, ensure
this does not prejudice the ability of existing communities to access the infrastructure
and service they need and to achieve wider community benefit is an important
consideration in the selection of sites for allocation and indeed in consideration
strategic options for accommodating development. Allocations should set
requirements, costs, phasing triggers, delivery bodies and long-term management
arrangements in this regard.
2.130 Tatton Estate has presented its Tatton Villages proposal within the recent call for sites
submission which provides an opportunity for a collection of sites to work together to
provide new and improve existing infrastructure supporting rural communities in this
area of Cheshire East and in doing so ensuring growth can be accommodated in a
sustainable manner. This reflects many of the principles outlined above.
Summary and implications
The Local Plan should embed transport and infrastructure planning within its spatial
strategy from the outset, recognising the Mid-Cheshire Line as a key corridor for
sustainable growth and investment.
Site allocations should be supported by clear infrastructure delivery requirements, with
the Tatton Villages proposal demonstrating how coordinated growth can help secure
infrastructure improvements and support sustainable rural communities.
Health and Wellbeing
2.131 Natural capital and health should be treated as infrastructure. Site selection and
allocation policies should require connected green and blue infrastructure, accessible
open space, biodiversity net gain, nature recovery, sustainable drainage, active travel
and facilities which support social interaction and healthy lifestyles.
2.132 These measures should be secured through allocation requirements, phasing and longterm stewardship rather than left as discretionary design detail.
Health and Health inequalities
2.133 The Local Plan should address the less visible inequalities affecting rural areas,
including housing affordability, limited public transport, access to healthcare and31
services, social isolation and digital connectivity. Healthy-place policy should be
embedded in the spatial strategy and site allocations.
2.134 Tatton Estate's proposals seek to create mixed-tenure, intergenerational communities
with walkable access to green space and facilities. Potential provision includes
healthcare and new primary schools, community and recreational facilities, shops,
community halls, public house or restaurant, public open space and active travel
improvements all of which will enhance health outcomes in rural villages.
Active Travel
2.135 Tatton Estate supports a connected, inclusive active travel network which serves
existing and new residents and links homes to stations, schools, employment, local
centres, community facilities and green space. Policies should address walking,
wheeling, mobility scooters, adapted cycles and e-bikes and should require safe
crossings, continuous routes, seating, wayfinding, cycle parking and long-term
maintenance.
2.136 The Estate's visions retain and enhance Public Rights of Way and propose links to the
Sustrans Regional Cycle Route and Greater Bollin Trail. These planned transport
improvements should be recognised in the Local Plan.
Climate Change
2.137 Tatton Estate supports climate mitigation and adaptation being embedded in the
vision, spatial strategy, site selection and allocation requirements. Sustainable location,
mixed uses, public transport, active travel, compact form, low-energy buildings,
renewable technology, green infrastructure, carbon sequestration and long-term
stewardship should be assessed together.
Climate Change Adaption
Renewable and Low carbon energy
2.138 Tatton Estate supports policies for renewable and low-carbon energy which are
proportionate, design-led and compatible with landscape, heritage, ecology and grid
capacity. The village visions include on-site solar energy, heat pumps and flexible
energy opportunities. Strategic engagement with electricity network operators should
identify reinforcement requirements early and align them with renewable options for
energy generation, and growth phasing.
Recreation and community facilities
2.139 Tatton Estate strongly supports a specific rural community facilities policy. Current
service provision is partly a product of historic population and investment patterns.
Policy should recognise that planned housing growth can create the critical mass and
funding required to retain, restore or introduce community facilities and improve
public transport.
2.140 Flexible and co-located facilities should be encouraged so buildings can adapt to
changing needs.
Design
2.141 Tatton Estate supports:32
• Design coding in principle
• Strong design governance
• Clear placemaking expectations
• Masterplan-led growth
• Landscape-led development
• Long-term stewardship models
2.142 However, Tatton Estate does not support a highly detailed borough-wide design code
that seeks to prescribe development outcomes across every part of Cheshire East. The
Borough is simply too diverse for a single code to appropriately guide development
across the multitude of contexts in which development will need to be delivered which
present varying challenges, opportunities and design requirements and drivers. To
highlight this variety, these situations include:
• Strategic urban extensions
• New village growth
• Transport-oriented settlements
• Employment locations
• Rural communities
• Strategic infrastructure locations
• Green Belt release sites
2.143 A single code would either become so generic that it adds little value, or become so
prescriptive that it constrains good, contextually-responsive urban design and
placemaking.
2.144 The Council should ensure that future design codes remain focused on place-making
outcomes, rather than prescriptive architectural solutions or compliance-based coding.
Successful places are rarely characterised by rigid uniformity. Instead, they are defined
by strong landscape structure, well-connected movement networks, attractive public
realm, biodiversity, sustainability, health outcomes and local distinctiveness. Design
codes should therefore prioritise:
• Landscape structure and green infrastructure;
• Walkability and active travel;
• Character and local identity;
• Climate resilience;
• Biodiversity enhancement;
• Public realm quality;
• Community infrastructure; and
• Long-term stewardship.
2.145 The LPSD appears to assume that design coding is primarily a regulatory exercise.
Tatton Estate considers that coding has a more strategic and influential role than this
and can be used positively to optimise positive place making outcomes. Design coding
should therefore be viewed as a placemaking tool, not simply a development
management tool.
2.146 Tatton Estate has already laid the foundations of this approach through the articulation
of its Tatton Villages concept which goes significantly beyond meeting development
requirements but has the outcome of achieving better places as its absolute focus.33
2.147 An important underpinning component of Tatton Estate’s villages proposal is
responsible long-term stewardship. To this end, Tatton Estate sees placemaking as not
solely a function of physical design, but also depends upon ongoing management,
maintenance and investment in landscape, public realm and community infrastructure.
Future design coding should therefore recognise stewardship and management
arrangements as key components of successful place delivery.
2.148 The Tatton Villages Charter provides a consistent estate-wide standard while allowing
each settlement to remain distinct. Its vision for the estate is landscape-led and
structured around walkability, mixed uses, connected green infrastructure, local
character and community facilities. The Estate has also undertaken early community
engagement so local concerns and priorities can inform any later masterplanning if
sites progress.
2.149 Tatton Estate’s recommended approach to achieving effective place making through
design policy and standards is tiered.
a) Borough-wide Design Framework:
2.150 Prepared by Cheshire East and linked to national guidance. This would establish:
• Design objectives
• Climate resilience expectations
• Green infrastructure principles
• Active travel requirements
• Healthy place principles
• Design review processes
b) Settlement Frameworks:
2.151 Prepared for specific settlements/areas (e.g. Knutsford, Tatton Villages, Southern
Growth Corridor, Market Towns). This tier would establish:
• Character
• Growth objectives
• Settlement role (within hierarchy across Cheshire East)
• Strategic landscape structure
c) Site-specific coding:
2.152 Prepared alongside allocations, contributing to more detailed design coding. This tier
would determine:
• Street hierarchy and typologies
• Block structure
• Landscape character
• Public realm
• Building typologies
• Design safeguards (inc. long-term management and stewardship)
2.153 This strategic approach is one which the Local Plan should take forward as an
overarching framework for achieving better place making through design.34
Summary and implications
Tatton Estate support design coding in principle, strong design governance. clear
placemaking expectations, masterplan-led growth, landscape-led development and longterm stewardship models.
It would caution against adopting a rigid Borough-wide approach to design coding reflecting
the diversity of the Borough rather a focus on place-based results, which achieve optimum
social, environmental and economic outcomes, should be the focus of any approach to
design coding or a design framework. This should be responsive to and cognisant of
localised circumstances and variation across the Borough.
LPDS Section 6: Proposed Local Plan Engagement Strategy
2.154 Tatton Estate supports an Engagement Strategy which is timely, transparent, accessible
and capable of demonstrating how evidence and representations have influenced planmaking. Engagement should include residents, businesses, infrastructure providers,
operators, landowners, younger people and those whose housing needs are not
represented by current home ownership patterns.
Key Issues
2.155 Tatton Estate agrees that housing need, the five-year supply shortfall, Green Belt
review, infrastructure and the accelerated programme require early and focused
engagement. The August 2026 NPPF must now be reflected throughout the process.
2.156 The Council should prioritise engagement on the choices which will determine delivery:
the distribution of growth, strategic infrastructure, the role of rural communities, the
Mid-Cheshire Line, affordable housing, Green Belt assessment, site selection and
infrastructure phasing. This will help move debate from whether change occurs to
where and how it can produce the best outcomes.
Engagement Principles
2.157 Tatton Estate supports the engagement principles, particularly early, evidence-led and
partnership-based working. Infrastructure providers, transport operators and
promoters with control of deliverable land should be engaged early enough to test
options and delivery, while formal site assessment remains consistent and transparent.
2.158 Promoter-led community engagement should be recognised as complementary to the
statutory process. Tatton Estate has sought to provide current information, answer
questions and allow local priorities to influence its thinking before any planning
application stage and has proactively organised community consultation events to
discussion submissions to the call for sites exercise with local stakeholders and
residents reflective of its commitment to early and collaborative dialogue.35
Engaging methods
Engaging Site Promoters
2.159 Tatton Estate supports a transparent and consistent approach to site promoters.
Published protocols should allow proportionate technical engagement on evidence,
infrastructure and deliverability without creating preferential treatment. Records
should distinguish factual clarification from advocacy and should be included in the
engagement register where appropriate.
2.160 The Council should also maintain accurate public site records. Superseded or
withdrawn submissions should be labelled and mapped separately from current
promotions. This is essential to prevent public misunderstanding and to ensure
assessment is based on the promoter's current position. Tatton Estate remains willing
to provide technical evidence and coordinate engagement with infrastructure
providers within the published process.36
Turley Manchester
Transmission
6 Atherton Street
Manchester
M3 3GS

The Crown Estate
Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan
Scoping Consultation 2026
September 2026The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. New Local Plan 5
3. Context for the new Local Plan 7
4. Baseline information and spatial portrait 12
5. Scope of the new Local Plan 14
6. Proposed Local Plan Engagement Strategy 23
7. Conclusion 24The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
1. Introduction
1.1. Deloitte LLP is instructed by The Crown Estate ("TCE") to submit representations to the
Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation (2026). TCE welcomes the opportunity to
engage at this early stage in the preparation of the new Cheshire East Local Plan. The
scoping consultation represents an important stage in establishing the matters that the
Local Plan should address, the evidence base required to support it, and the approach to
future engagement with stakeholders.
1.2. The new Local Plan will need to respond to a materially changed planning context,
including a significantly increased housing requirement, the Council’s current housing
land supply position, the new plan-making system, the emerging Cheshire and
Warrington Spatial Development Strategy, and the publication of the August 2026
National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) during the consultation period.
1.3. TCE welcomes the preparation of a positively prepared, ambitious and deliverable Local
Plan which meets identified housing and employment needs, supports sustainable
economic growth, and directs development to locations that are, or can be made,
sustainable through appropriate infrastructure provision, public transport accessibility,
active travel connections, environmental enhancement and long-term stewardship.
1.4. In summary, TCE considers that the new Local Plan should:
 meet identified housing and employment needs in full and test whether
additional growth is justified by economic, affordable housing or infrastructure
considerations;
 establish a clear and deliverable spatial strategy informed by a robust
assessment of reasonable alternatives;
 assess Green Belt, Grey Belt and safeguarded land through a transparent and
integrated methodology;
 give appropriate weight to well-connected locations, including Key Service
Centres and rail-connected settlements;
 identify a diverse portfolio of sites capable of contributing across different scales
and timescales; and
 integrate infrastructure, employment, sustainable transport and environmental
enhancement with decisions about the location of growth.
Background and Context
1.5. TCE is a long-term landowner within Cheshire East through its ownership of the Tabley
Estate, with landholdings around Knutsford and Plumley. Its interests include land
allocated for development within the adopted Local Plan, safeguarded land identified
through the adopted Local Plan process, and a wider portfolio of landholdings which
have been submitted through the Council’s recent Call for Sites process.
1.6. As a long-term landowner and steward of public assets, TCE is committed to working
positively with Cheshire East Council throughout preparation of the new Local Plan.
These representations seek to support the preparation of a robust and evidence-ledThe Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Local Plan and to ensure that a broad range of growth opportunities are appropriately
assessed through the emerging evidence base and site assessment process.
1.7. TCE’s land interests are relevant to the preparation of the emerging Local Plan in a
number of respects. These include:
 Land West of Manchester Road, Knutsford, which comprises land allocated for
residential and employment development within the adopted Local Plan (LPS 36).
A full planning application (ref. 26/1231/FUL) was submitted in March 2026 on
parcel B of the allocation, which is currently being determined. TCE remains
committed to delivering the remainder of the allocation in a timely fashion.
 Land North and South of Tabley Road, Knutsford, comprising safeguarded land
identified in adopted Local Plan policies LPS 39 and LPS 40 as land to meet
longer-term development needs.
 A wider portfolio of landholdings around Knutsford and Plumley, comprising
opportunities of differing scales and characteristics submitted through the
Council’s Call for Sites process. This includes land associated with the potential
future growth of Knutsford as a Key Service Centre, opportunities associated with
the rail-connected settlement of Plumley, and larger landholdings capable of
being considered as part of the Council's assessment of longer-term growth
options.
1.8. Collectively, these land interests comprise a diverse portfolio of opportunities of
different scales and locations within Cheshire East. The emerging Local Plan and
supporting evidence base should therefore assess these interests appropriately as part
of the Council’s consideration of future growth options and the preparation of a
sustainable and deliverable spatial strategy.
1.9. The range of options identified above is particularly relevant given the materially
increased housing requirement and the need for the Local Plan to identify a sufficient and
resilient supply of suitable, available and deliverable sites.
1.10. It is therefore critical that the new Local Plan is prepared positively, quickly and on the
basis of robust evidence. The plan must identify a sufficient supply of suitable, available
and deliverable sites to meet housing and employment needs in full, while providing a
clear framework for infrastructure, environmental enhancement and high-quality
placemaking.
1.11. These representations have been prepared having regard to the NPPF published in
August 2026, which applies to relevant plan-making from 17 August 2026. The Council
should therefore review the consultation responses, evidence base and next stages of
Plan preparation against the final Framework, particularly in relation to Green Belt, Grey
Belt, station-related development, strategic sites, housing delivery, economic growth
and national decision-making policies.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
2. New Local Plan
Matters addressed in the new Local Plan
2.1. TCE supports the broad range of matters identified by the Council for inclusion within the
new Local Plan. These appropriately cover housing, employment, transport,
infrastructure, climate change, environmental matters, design and placemaking, health
and wellbeing and sustainable economic growth.
2.2. However, TCE considers that the Local Plan should be framed first and foremost around
the need to respond positively to the significant increase in development requirements
now facing Cheshire East. The revised standard method housing need figure, changes to
national policy and the Council's current housing land supply position collectively
indicate that the new Local Plan will require the Council to reconsider the scale and
distribution of growth that informed the adopted Local Plan Strategy.
2.3. In this context, the Local Plan should prioritise the following matters, which will be
central to establishing a positive and deliverable growth strategy:
 meeting housing and employment needs in full;
 establishing a clear and deliverable spatial strategy;
 undertaking an evidence-led review of Green Belt and Grey Belt land where
necessary to meet identified needs;
 identifying a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable sites;
 planning infrastructure alongside growth;
 promoting sustainable transport and well-connected locations; and
 supporting long-term economic competitiveness.
2.4. TCE considers that these issues are intrinsically linked and should not be considered
through separate strategic policy workstreams. Housing, employment, infrastructure,
transport and environmental enhancement should instead form part of a single
integrated growth strategy.
Why prepare a new Local Plan
2.5. TCE strongly supports the preparation of a new Local Plan. The adopted Local Plan was
prepared within a materially different policy and housing context. The increased housing
requirement, national policy changes, the Council’s housing land supply position and the
emerging Cheshire and Warrington strategic context require a new and deliverable
spatial strategy.
2.6. An up-to-date Plan will provide the framework needed to coordinate housing,
employment, infrastructure and environmental improvements. Without it, there is a
greater risk that development will be determined through individual applications and
appeals rather than through a planned spatial strategy.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Developing the new Local Plan
2.7. TCE supports the Council's intention to progress the Local Plan in accordance with the
new plan-making system.
2.8. The emerging Cheshire and Warrington Spatial Development Strategy (‘SDS’) will form an
important part of the wider strategic planning context, including in relation to broad
growth locations, infrastructure and economic priorities. The Cheshire East Local Plan
should continue without delay while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to relevant
strategic priorities as the SDS emerges. The NPPF and PPG emphasise the importance of
effective cooperation on strategic planning matters. Given the Combined Authority's role
in coordinating growth, infrastructure and transport priorities across the city region, the
Council should continue to engage closely with the Combined Authority throughout plan
preparation to ensure alignment with wider strategic objectives.
2.9. The Council should ensure that decisions regarding the spatial strategy are informed by a
robust and proportionate evidence base. In particular, the following studies will have a
critical role in shaping future growth options:
 Green Belt Assessment;
 Land Availability Assessment;
 Settlement Hierarchy Review;
 Spatial Distribution Report;
 Housing Needs Assessment;
 Employment Land Review;
 Infrastructure Delivery Plan; and
 Viability Assessment.
2.10. TCE considers it important that these documents are prepared and published sufficiently
early to enable meaningful engagement before key strategic decisions become fixed.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
3. Context for the new Local
Plan
Increase in housing requirements
3.1. The materially increased housing requirement represents a fundamental change in the
planning context for the new Local Plan. It will require the Council to reconsider the
distribution of growth, the role of different settlements, realistic brownfield capacity, the
need for Green Belt release, and safeguarded land, settlement extensions and strategicscale opportunities.
3.2. Policies HO1 and HO2 of the August 2026 NPPF require the Plan to establish a housing
requirement based on local housing need as a minimum and to consider a higher figure
where justified as necessary to reflect economic growth and infrastructure investment.
TCE considers that the Plan should meet the revised standard method figure as a
minimum and test whether a higher requirement is justified by economic growth,
infrastructure investment, affordable housing need and emerging Cheshire and
Warrington SDS priorities.
3.3. The Council’s current five-year housing land supply position reinforces the need for a
positive and deliverable plan-led strategy. Cheshire East Council’s latest published
Housing Monitoring Update (March 2025) concludes that the Council has 3.3 years’
supply of deliverable housing sites against the required five years. In the absence of a
demonstrable five-year supply, housing delivery is increasingly influenced by
applications and appeals rather than a coordinated spatial strategy. Strong recent
delivery identified through the Housing Delivery Test (August 2026) is welcomed, but it is
not a substitute for a positively prepared Local Plan capable of maintaining housing
delivery through the plan period.
3.4. This shortfall demonstrates that the Local Plan must identify a larger and more resilient
portfolio of deliverable and developable sites. It should not rely on any single source of
supply or any single settlement tier. Instead, it should identify strategic allocations,
urban extensions, station-related opportunities, and smaller and medium-sized sites
capable of supporting delivery across the plan period, whilst also helping to maintain and
enhance the vitality of settlements across the Borough by supporting local services,
facilities, infrastructure and sustainable communities.
3.5. TCE's land interests demonstrate the breadth of opportunities that may be available to
support this approach and should be assessed through the emerging evidence base
alongside other reasonable alternatives.
Changes to Green Belt policy
3.6. TCE supports the Council’s intention to undertake a borough-wide Green Belt
Assessment as part of the Local Plan evidence base. This will be a critical component of
the emerging Plan given the significant extent of Green Belt within Cheshire East and the
scale of development now required.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
3.7. The Green Belt is an important planning designation and its purposes should be properly
assessed. However, it should not be treated as a fixed constraint that prevents
consideration of sustainable growth options where development needs cannot otherwise
be met. The August 2026 NPPF provides a clear framework for Green Belt review through
plan-making where exceptional circumstances are evidenced and justified.
3.8. Policy GB3 of the NPPF confirms that exceptional circumstances include situations
where a local planning authority is unable to meet its identified need for homes,
commercial or other development in full, having examined all other reasonable options.
That position is directly relevant to Cheshire East, given the significant increase in
housing need and the Council’s current housing land supply position.
3.9. Policy GB4 requires Green Belt boundary alterations to promote sustainable patterns of
development, giving priority to previously developed land in sustainable locations, then
Grey Belt land in sustainable locations, and then other Green Belt locations where this
would promote a sustainable pattern of development overall. The assessment should
therefore consider not only the Green Belt function of land, but also the sustainability of
the location and the ability of development to support infrastructure, services and
sustainable movement patterns.
3.10. TCE considers that the Green Belt Assessment should be sufficiently detailed to identify
variations in how land performs against Green Belt purposes. Broad-brush assessment
parcels risk obscuring opportunities where land performs a limited Green Belt function,
where defensible boundaries exist, or where development could be planned
comprehensively without undermining the wider function of the Green Belt.
3.11. The assessment should pay particular attention to opportunities around Knutsford. As a
Key Service Centre with a strong range of services, facilities, employment opportunities
and transport connections, the settlement is capable of accommodating growth. The
Green Belt Assessment should therefore consider the extent to which opportunities
around the settlement could contribute towards the Borough’s development
requirements.
3.12. Plumley should be assessed positively in light of its railway station. Its role should not be
judged solely by population size or current settlement classification, but also by its
public transport accessibility and its potential to support sustainable travel, local
services and proportionate housing growth. Opportunities around Plumley should
therefore be assessed through the Settlement Hierarchy Review and Spatial Distribution
Strategy, having regard to their ability to support sustainable travel patterns, local
services and proportionate growth.
3.13. The safeguarded land north and south of Tabley Road (LPS 39 and LPS 40) is an example
of land that has already been identified through the adopted Local Plan as land which
may be required to meet longer-term development needs, and which remains available
to be considered as part of the emerging Local Plan. In the context of the revised housing
requirement and the lack of a five-year housing land supply, the Council should consider
a more general, positive approach to sustainable and deliverable proposals on
safeguarded land in advance of and separate from the completion of the Local Plan
process.
3.14. Pending adoption of the new Local Plan, the Council should consider preparing an
interim housing position statement setting out a positive and transparent approach to the
determination of housing proposals on safeguarded land. Such an approach would not
alter the formal designation of the land, which would remain a matter for the Local PlanThe Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
review, nor displace the statutory priority afforded to the development plan. It would,
however, recognise that policies restricting housing development on safeguarded land
should be applied in light of the Council’s current housing land supply position, the
materially increased housing requirement and the presumption in favour of sustainable
development.
3.15. The approach adopted by Kirklees Council provides a relevant precedent. Its Interim
Housing Position Statement retains the adopted safeguarded-land designation but
recognises that, in the absence of a five-year housing land supply, safeguarded sites may
provide opportunities for early housing development where constraints can be
overcome. Cheshire East should adopt a similarly positive approach, giving substantial
weight to sustainable and deliverable proposals on safeguarded land, particularly where
sites are well related to existing settlements, can be supported by appropriate
infrastructure and are capable of contributing to housing supply within the short term.
Such an approach would provide an appropriate framework for the early consideration of
the safeguarded land relating to LPS 39 and LPS 40, both of which are well related to
Knutsford and capable of contributing to housing delivery in the short term.
3.16. TCE supports a robust Green Belt and Grey Belt assessment but considers that it must
be applied in a manner that enables genuinely sustainable and deliverable sites to be
considered through the plan-making process. Given the central role that Green Belt and
Grey Belt considerations are likely to play in accommodating Cheshire East's future
development needs, TCE considers that the Green Belt Assessment should be treated as
a priority evidence base document and prepared sufficiently early to inform key decisions
regarding the spatial strategy and distribution of growth. This will be essential if the Local
Plan is to meet development needs in full while promoting a sustainable spatial strategy.
Brownfield Development
3.17. TCE supports the effective use of previously developed land where such land is suitable,
available and deliverable. A brownfield-first approach is appropriate and consistent with
national policy.
3.18. However, the scale of housing and employment growth now facing Cheshire East means
that brownfield land alone will not provide a sufficient solution. The Council's own
monitoring evidence demonstrates that a substantial proportion of development has
historically been delivered on greenfield sites, with previously developed land accounting
for only around one-third of housing completions in recent monitoring years. Brownfield
sites can also face constraints relating to ownership, viability, contamination,
infrastructure, market demand and delivery timescales. The Local Plan should therefore
avoid placing undue reliance on brownfield capacity where there is no clear evidence
that it can meet the Borough’s needs in full.
3.19. The Council’s own scoping material identifies that the new Local Plan may need to
consider a range of options, including densification, further development within existing
settlements, edge-of-settlement growth, large-scale urban extensions and new
settlements. TCE supports that broad approach.
3.20. The Local Plan should therefore maximise brownfield opportunities while also identifying
sustainable greenfield and Green Belt locations where these are necessary to meet
housing and employment needs. TCE’s landholdings across the Tabley Estate provide
examples of greenfield and Green Belt opportunities that could deliver new homes,
employment land, infrastructure, open space and environmental benefits in sustainable
locations.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Economic Growth
3.21. TCE supports the Council’s recognition that Cheshire East has an important economic
role and that the new Local Plan must plan positively for employment growth, investment
and long-term competitiveness. The emerging Plan should ensure that housing,
employment and infrastructure are planned in a coordinated manner so that growth is
capable of supporting sustainable economic outcomes across the Borough.
3.22. Policy E1 of the August 2026 NPPF requires development plans to establish a clear
economic vision and strategy, support business investment, and allocate sites to meet
anticipated employment needs over the plan period. The policy recognises the
importance of providing flexibility to respond to changing economic circumstances and
supporting a diverse range of sectors and business activities.
3.23. Housing and employment growth should not be considered separately. A sustainable
spatial strategy should seek to align new homes with employment opportunities,
services, infrastructure and sustainable transport. This will help reduce commuting
distances, support inclusive economic growth and ensure that housing delivery supports
the labour force required by the local economy.
3.24. Given Knutsford's role as a Key Service Centre and its proximity to strategic transport
infrastructure, opportunities around the settlement should be assessed not only in terms
of housing delivery but also in terms of their ability to support employment growth,
investment and wider economic objectives across Cheshire East and the sub-region.
Knutsford benefits from strong connectivity to the strategic highway network,
Manchester Airport, Greater Manchester and the wider Cheshire and Warrington
economy. The Council's assessment of growth options around the settlement should
therefore take account of their potential contribution to both housing and employment
needs.
3.25. TCE’s land interests associated with the wider Tabley Estate also provide an opportunity
for the Council to consider how larger-scale growth options could contribute towards
economic objectives over the longer term. In addition to supporting housing delivery,
such opportunities may have the potential to support employment provision,
infrastructure investment, sustainable transport improvements and enhanced
connectivity between homes, jobs and services. The precise scale and form of any such
contribution should be determined through the evidence base and site assessment
process.
3.26. Opportunities around Knutsford, together with other opportunities within the wider
Tabley Estate, should therefore be assessed through the Economic Development Needs
Assessment, Employment Land Review and Spatial Distribution Strategy. This
assessment should consider not only their ability to contribute towards housing delivery,
but also their potential role in supporting labour market accessibility, business growth,
infrastructure investment and wider economic competitiveness.
3.27. More generally, the Local Plan should assess a broad range of growth options and
determine the most appropriate scale and distribution of development having regard to
housing need, employment requirements, infrastructure capacity, sustainability
considerations and long-term economic objectives. The Plan should provide sufficient
flexibility to respond to changing economic circumstances whilst ensuring that future
growth contributes positively to Cheshire East's economic success and competitiveness.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Spatial Development Strategy
3.28. TCE notes that Cheshire East is now part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined
Authority area and that a Spatial Development Strategy will be prepared for Cheshire and
Warrington. TCE supports strategic planning at the sub-regional level, particularly where
it helps align housing, employment, infrastructure, transport and environmental priorities
across administrative boundaries.
3.29. However, preparation of the Cheshire East Local Plan should not be delayed pending the
Spatial Development Strategy. The Local Plan should continue to progress, identify
sufficient land to meet development needs and establish an appropriate spatial strategy,
while retaining flexibility to respond to any relevant strategic priorities that emerge
through the SDS process.
3.30. Policy PM1 of the August 2026 NPPF confirms that Spatial Development Strategies
should identify broad locations for growth and regeneration, including new settlements,
major urban extensions and major cross-boundary development where appropriate. TCE
supports this approach, recognising that large-scale strategic development requires
coordinated planning across administrative boundaries, particularly in relation to
transport, utilities and wider infrastructure capacity and delivery. The Cheshire East
Local Plan should therefore align with any broad growth locations identified through the
forthcoming Cheshire and Warrington Spatial Development Strategy, while retaining
sufficient flexibility to respond to the SDS as it emerges. This alignment will be important
to ensure that strategic sites are planned comprehensively and supported by the
infrastructure necessary for their delivery.
3.31. Opportunities around Knutsford and within the wider Tabley Estate are of sufficient scale
to warrant assessment through the Local Plan process and, where relevant, the emerging
spatial development strategy. Their potential role should be informed through the
Council's evidence base and considered alongside other reasonable alternatives in
establishing the most appropriate spatial strategy.
National Decision-Making Policies
3.32. TCE supports the Council's recognition that the introduction of National Decision-Making
Policies provides an opportunity for local plans to focus on genuinely local matters.
3.33. The Local Plan should avoid unnecessary duplication of national policy and instead
focus on the issues that are specific to Cheshire East, including the spatial strategy, site
allocations, settlement hierarchy, Green Belt review, affordable housing requirements
and infrastructure planning.
3.34. However, this should not result in an overly narrow plan. The Local Plan remains the
primary mechanism through which Cheshire East will determine how and where future
growth is accommodated and therefore should provide a strategic vision that aligns with
national and regional policies.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
4. Baseline information and
spatial portrait
Connectivity
4.1. TCE supports the Council's recognition of Cheshire East's strong connectivity and
strategic location. The Borough benefits from excellent connections to regional and
national transport networks, including the M6 and M56 motorways, Manchester Airport
and an extensive rail network.
4.2. Connectivity should form a central part of the future spatial strategy. The Local Plan
should direct growth towards locations which are well connected by public transport or
which have the ability to support improvements to sustainable transport infrastructure.
4.3. The August 2026 NPPF places increased emphasis on locating development where it can
make effective use of existing and proposed transport infrastructure, including through
its support for residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking
distance of qualifying well-connected railway stations. In this regard, opportunities
around Knutsford, including land associated with the Tabley Estate, should be assessed
in the context of the settlement's role as a Key Service Centre, its relationship with the
strategic highway network and its accessibility to employment and services. Future
growth in this part of the Borough has the potential to support sustainable travel patterns
and infrastructure investment where planned comprehensively.
4.4. Opportunities around Plumley are also relevant in this context. As a rail-connected
settlement, Plumley provides a distinctive opportunity to consider how proportionate
growth can support sustainable travel patterns, reinforce the role of the railway station
and contribute to the long-term vitality of local services and facilities.
4.5. Larger-scale opportunities within TCE's land portfolio may provide scope for transport
and infrastructure requirements to be considered comprehensively alongside
development. The Council should assess not only current accessibility but also the
extent to which growth may support improvements to transport, active travel,
infrastructure and service provision.
Economic contribution
4.6. Cheshire East plays a significant role within the wider North West economy and benefits
from a diverse economic base, strong transport connections and a number of nationally
and regionally important employment centres. The Borough's economic success has
historically been supported by its ability to attract and retain a skilled workforce, provide
a high-quality environment for investment and deliver a range of housing opportunities
across its settlements.
4.7. TCE supports the Council's recognition that economic growth should remain a central
component of the emerging Local Plan. The Local Plan should not treat housing delivery
and economic development as separate policy objectives. Instead, it should recognise
that the two are fundamentally linked and that a sufficient supply of homes is essential toThe Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
support labour market growth, improve affordability and maintain the competitiveness of
the Borough's economy.
4.8. The emerging evidence base should therefore consider how housing need, employment
growth and infrastructure provision interact. This is particularly important given the
significant increase in housing requirements and the potential implications this may have
for labour supply, commuting patterns and business investment. The Local Plan should
ensure that growth is distributed in a manner that supports both existing employment
centres and future economic opportunities.
4.9. TCE considers that strategic and mixed-use development opportunities can play an
important role in delivering this objective. Larger sites are often capable of supporting
housing, employment, community infrastructure and sustainable transport
improvements through a coordinated and masterplanned approach. Such opportunities
can help create balanced communities, reduce the need to travel and provide greater
certainty regarding infrastructure delivery.
4.10. The Local Plan should therefore positively assess a range of growth options capable of
supporting both housing and economic objectives. This should include consideration of
strategic urban extensions, mixed-use sites and potential longer-term growth
opportunities where these can contribute towards the Borough's economic resilience,
competitiveness and productivity.
4.11. Overall, the Local Plan should seek to establish a clear relationship between housing
growth, employment growth and infrastructure investment, ensuring that future
development supports Cheshire East's role as a sustainable and economically
successful location within the wider region.
4.12. Strategic growth opportunities around Knutsford and within the wider Tabley Estate are
particularly relevant because they can integrate homes, employment land, transport
improvements, digital infrastructure, utilities and sustainable travel connections through
comprehensive masterplanning. Their relationship with the M6 corridor, Knutsford
railway station and the Mid-Cheshire rail corridor should be assessed as part of the
evidence base, particularly where this could support labour market accessibility,
business connectivity and investment in high-value sectors.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
5. Scope of the new Local
Plan
Local Plan Period
5.1. TCE supports the proposed plan period to 2045. However, the Local Plan should also
consider longer-term growth requirements beyond the end of the plan period, particularly
where strategic urban extensions or new settlement opportunities are being assessed.
Larger sites may require delivery across multiple phases and potentially beyond a single
plan period. This should not prevent such opportunities from being considered through
the plan-making process, although their delivery may extend beyond a single plan period.
Vision and Objectives
5.2. TCE supports the preparation of a clear, locally distinctive and deliverable vision for
Cheshire East. The vision should respond directly to the changed planning context,
including the higher housing requirement, current housing land supply shortfall,
economic growth ambitions, the need for Green Belt review and the publication of the
August 2026 NPPF.
5.3. The vision should not simply seek to manage growth. It should explain how Cheshire East
will accommodate growth positively and sustainably, while delivering homes,
employment, infrastructure, environmental enhancement and healthy communities.
5.4. TCE considers that the vision and objectives should include the following priorities:
 meeting housing need in full, as a minimum;
 testing whether a higher housing requirement is justified by economic growth,
affordable housing need or infrastructure investment;
 supporting sustainable economic growth and employment delivery;
 ensuring a sufficient supply of affordable homes and a broad housing mix;
 reviewing Green Belt boundaries where necessary to meet needs;
 testing strategic urban extensions and new settlement options;
 supporting growth at sustainable settlements and rail-connected locations;
 integrating infrastructure planning with site allocation decisions;
 delivering multifunctional green infrastructure, biodiversity net gain and climate
resilience; and
 maintaining a deliverable supply of sites throughout the plan period.
Identifying and assessing sites
5.5. TCE supports the Council’s intention to prepare a robust and evidence-led assessment
of potential development sites. The assessment process will be critical to ensuring thatThe Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
the Local Plan identifies a sufficient supply and mix of sites to meet the Borough’s
development needs.
5.6. Policy PM9 of the August 2026 NPPF requires development plans to be informed by an
assessment of land available to meet development needs, including consideration of
availability, suitability, achievability, likely viability, site capacity and delivery timescales.
5.7. TCE considers that the site assessment methodology should be transparent,
proportionate and capable of assessing different categories of site. It should not be
designed in a way that favours only one type or scale of development. Smaller sites,
safeguarded land, settlement-edge opportunities, strategic urban extensions and new
settlements will all need to be assessed through an appropriate methodology.
5.8. The assessment process should give appropriate weight to:
 land ownership and availability;
 deliverability and likely delivery timescales;
 ability to contribute to five-year housing land supply;
 relationship to existing settlements and services;
 relationship to railway stations and strategic transport corridors;
 potential to deliver housing, employment and community facilities together;
 ability to support affordable housing and housing choice;
 infrastructure requirements and opportunities;
 ability to deliver green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain;
 Green Belt performance, where relevant;
 landscape, heritage, ecology and flood risk considerations; and
 long-term flexibility and phasing.
5.9. The assessment should avoid applying overly restrictive criteria at an early stage. In
particular, strategic sites and new settlement options should not be discounted simply
because they require comprehensive masterplanning or longer delivery periods. Such
sites may be important to maintaining supply over the middle and later parts of the plan
period and may provide opportunities to deliver infrastructure and environmental
benefits at scale.
5.10. TCE’s landholdings are relevant to this assessment because they include sites capable
of contributing across a range of timescales. The allocated land West of Manchester
Road, the safeguarded land at Tabley Road and smaller sites around Knutsford and
Plumley could contribute early in the plan period. Larger scale opportunities within the
wider Tabley Estate provide longer-term strategic options capable of supporting
comprehensive infrastructure-led growth.
5.11. TCE therefore requests that the Council’s site assessment methodology expressly
recognises the different roles that sites can play across the plan period, including early
delivery, settlement-edge growth, rail-connected growth, and strategic urban extensions
and new settlements.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Green Belt
5.12. TCE notes the approach set out at paragraphs 5.16 and 5.17 of the scoping consultation
for determining whether Green Belt boundary changes are required. This exercise should
be integrated with, rather than undertaken separately from, the assessment of sites,
settlement hierarchy and spatial distribution. The Council’s own consultation identifies
site selection, Green Belt, settlement hierarchy and spatial strategy as interrelated
considerations in planning for growth.
5.13. TCE supports the assessment of future development needs and the effective use of
suitable brownfield and underused land. However, the sequential considerations listed
at paragraph 5.17 should not operate as a series of rigid filters through which otherwise
sustainable Green Belt sites are excluded before their comparative merits have been
assessed. In particular, the existence of theoretical capacity outside the Green Belt
should not be treated as sufficient unless that capacity is demonstrated to be suitable,
available, deliverable and capable of supporting a sustainable spatial strategy.
5.14. All reasonable growth options should therefore be assessed through a consistent and
transparent framework. For Green Belt sites, this should bring together:
 the contribution of the land to Green Belt purposes, including whether it
comprises Grey Belt;
 the site’s relationship with the settlement hierarchy and existing settlement form;
 accessibility to services, employment and public transport, including railway
stations;
 infrastructure capacity and the opportunity for development to deliver
improvements;
 availability, deliverability, viability, capacity and likely phasing;
 environmental, landscape, heritage and flood-risk considerations; and
 the ability to deliver housing, employment, community facilities, green
infrastructure and wider public benefits comprehensively.
5.15. This would align the Green Belt exercise with the wider spatial-distribution factors
identified by the Council, which include housing and employment needs, infrastructure,
services, environmental constraints, Green Belt, brownfield availability, site availability,
market attractiveness and viability.
5.16. TCE considers that “considering sites outside the Green Belt first” should mean that
reasonable non-Green Belt alternatives are properly examined; it should not establish an
automatic preference for a less sustainable or less deliverable location solely because it
lies outside the Green Belt. Comparative assessment should consider whether each
option would promote a sustainable pattern of development and contribute effectively to
meeting identified needs.
5.17. Similarly, optimising density and maximising brownfield capacity are important
components of the strategy, but the Council should test whether the resulting capacity is
realistic and deliverable over the plan period. These measures should not be relied upon
to defer the assessment of Green Belt opportunities where additional land may be
required to meet development needs in full and maintain a sufficient and resilient supply
of sites.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
5.18. Where exceptional circumstances are identified, decisions on potential Green Belt
release should be made through the wider spatial strategy and site-selection process.
Appropriate weight should be given to opportunities that are well related to existing
settlements or well-connected railway stations, as well as strategic sites capable of
delivering infrastructure, employment provision, sustainable transport, community
facilities and environmental improvements through comprehensive masterplanning. The
Council expressly anticipates testing a range of options, including edge-of-settlement
growth, large-scale urban extensions and new settlements; Green Belt location or site
scale should not prevent those options from being assessed on a comparable basis.
5.19. The land availability methodology should explain clearly how Green Belt considerations
will interact with the initial site sift, scoring and subsequent allocation stages. Sites
should not be filtered out solely because of their existing Green Belt designation before
the Green Belt assessment, settlement hierarchy review, spatial distribution work and
sustainability assessment have been considered together. The Council proposes to
publish its methodology and initial site assessments at the subsequent plan content and
evidence consultation; these should provide a clear audit trail showing how the factors
above have informed each assessment.
5.20. Applied in this way, the approach at paragraphs 5.16 and 5.17 would enable the Local
Plan to identify the most sustainable and deliverable combination of sites while
protecting Green Belt land that makes the strongest contribution to its purposes. It would
also ensure that smaller releases, safeguarded land, settlement extensions and
strategic-scale opportunities are assessed fairly and through a methodology appropriate
to their scale and potential contribution.
5.21. TCE requests that the Council clearly sets out how the findings of the Green Belt
assessment have informed the assessment of reasonable alternatives and site selection
process, alongside sustainability, deliverability and infrastructure considerations.
5.22. Pending the completion of that process, the Council should also consider an interim
housing position statement establishing a positive and transparent approach to
sustainable and deliverable housing proposals on safeguarded land, as set out earlier in
these representations.
Strategic green gap
5.23. TCE supports the Council's intention to review the Strategic Green Gap designation and
its role within the emerging Local Plan.
5.24. Strategic Green Gaps can play an important role in maintaining the separation and
identity of settlements. However, the review should be evidence based and should
recognise that not all land within a designated gap performs the same function.
5.25. The assessment should identify those locations that make the greatest contribution to
maintaining separation whilst recognising that the scale of development needs now
facing Cheshire East may require a balanced assessment between protecting settlement
identity and accommodating sustainable growth.
5.26. The Strategic Green Gap should therefore not operate as an absolute constraint on
development. Instead, it should form part of a wider planning balance which takes
account of housing need, sustainability, deliverability, infrastructure provision and
landscape considerations.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
Settlement Hierarchy
5.27. TCE supports the Council’s intention to review the settlement hierarchy as part of the
preparation of the new Local Plan. Given the scale of housing need now facing Cheshire
East, the settlement hierarchy will play a significant role in shaping the distribution of
development and identifying sustainable locations for growth.
5.28. The hierarchy should be informed by an up-to-date assessment of the role and function
of settlements. It should consider access to services and facilities, employment
opportunities, public transport, active travel, strategic infrastructure, settlement form,
market demand, recent growth, infrastructure capacity and the potential for
development to support improvements.
5.29. TCE supports Knutsford continuing to be identified as a Key Service Centre. Knutsford
has a strong range of services, facilities and employment opportunities, and benefits
from a strategically accessible location. It should therefore be considered as a
settlement capable of accommodating a meaningful proportion of future growth.
5.30. The previous Local Plan directed approximately 950 dwellings to Knutsford, which was
lower than the level of growth directed to several other Key Service Centres. In light of the
increased housing requirement and the scale of available land around the settlement,
the new Local Plan should consider whether Knutsford should accommodate a greater
level of growth over the new plan period.
5.31. TCE’s land interests around Knutsford provide a practical basis for assessing this issue.
Land West of Manchester Road is already allocated for mixed-use development. Land
North and South of Tabley Road comprises safeguarded land capable of forming a logical
next phase of growth. Given the Council's current housing land supply position and
increased housing requirement, these sites should be considered not only through the
Local Plan review but also through any interim approach adopted in respect of
safeguarded land proposals. Larger scale opportunities around Knutsford could deliver
homes, employment, services, open space and infrastructure in a comprehensive
manner.
5.32. TCE also considers that the role of Plumley should be reviewed carefully. Plumley
benefits from a railway station and should not be assessed in the same way as more
remote rural settlements with no rail connectivity. The August 2026 NPPF includes
support for development associated with well-connected stations, subject to relevant
criteria.
5.33. The Settlement Hierarchy Review should therefore give appropriate weight to public
transport accessibility and the potential for station-related growth. TCE’s land interests
around Plumley provide examples of opportunities that could contribute to proportionate
growth at a rail-connected settlement.
Spatial Distribution
5.34. TCE considers that the spatial distribution of development is one of the most important
matters for the new Local Plan. The scale of housing need now facing Cheshire East
means that the Council will need to test a broad range of options and should avoid an
overly narrow approach to growth.
5.35. TCE supports a balanced spatial strategy which draws on a variety of site types and
locations. This should include urban regeneration, brownfield land, existing allocations,
safeguarded land, sustainable urban extensions, station-related development, smaller
and medium-sized sites, and potential new settlements.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
5.36. Policies HO3 and HO4 of the August 2026 NPPF support this approach. Policy HO3
requires local plans to identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites to meet or exceed the
housing requirement over the plan period. Policy HO4 recognises the role of strategic
sites, including new settlements and significant extensions to existing settlements,
where they can be supported by infrastructure and can create sustainable communities.
5.37. In TCE’s view, the Local Plan should avoid excessive reliance on either dispersed smallscale development or a limited number of large strategic allocations. A resilient strategy
will require both. Smaller and medium-sized sites can support early delivery and housing
diversity, while larger sites can deliver infrastructure, employment land, community
facilities, green infrastructure and long-term supply.
5.38. TCE’s landholdings illustrate this balanced approach. The allocated land West of
Manchester Road and safeguarded land North and South of Tabley Road could
contribute to earlier delivery at Knutsford, including through any positive interim
approach to safeguarded land in advance of the new Local Plan. Larger scale
opportunities around Knutsford and within the wider Tabley Estate could provide longerterm growth options. The Plumley sites could support proportionate growth associated
with a rail-connected settlement.
5.39. The new Local Plan should assess these opportunities as part of a comparative
assessment of reasonable alternatives. This should include consideration of
sustainability, deliverability, infrastructure, Green Belt performance, access to services,
transport connectivity, environmental effects and the ability to deliver wider public
benefits.
Development in the Settlements and the Countryside
5.40. TCE supports the continued use of settlement boundaries as a tool for managing
development. However, settlement boundaries should not become inflexible constraints
that prevent otherwise sustainable opportunities from being properly assessed.
Settlement boundaries should be reviewed alongside the Settlement Hierarchy Review
and Spatial Distribution Report to ensure they reflect the strategy of the new Local Plan.
5.41. The Local Plan should also recognise an important distinction between isolated
countryside locations and sites which are physically related to existing settlements,
strategic transport infrastructure or railway stations.
5.42. Locations which are well connected and relate closely to existing settlements may be
capable of accommodating growth in a way that supports sustainable travel patterns and
strengthens existing communities.
5.43. This will be particularly important in considering the role of rail-connected settlements
and opportunities associated with strategic growth locations around Knutsford and
Plumley.
5.44. TCE supports a positive approach to development associated with sustainable rural
settlements, particularly where such settlements benefit from public transport
connectivity. Plumley represents an example of a settlement capable of accommodating
carefully planned growth due to its railway station and strategic accessibility.
Housing
5.45. TCE supports the Council’s intention to address housing need, affordable housing,
housing mix, older persons housing, specialist accommodation, self-build and custombuild housing, and housing diversification through the new Local Plan.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
5.46. The Housing Needs Assessment should inform the quantity, type, size and tenure of
housing required across Cheshire East. However, housing policies should be prepared
alongside the spatial strategy, viability evidence and infrastructure planning. Policy
requirements must be ambitious but deliverable.
5.47. Policy PM12 of the August 2026 NPPF requires development plans to set out the
contributions expected from development, including affordable housing and
infrastructure, at a level that allows the planned types of development and sites to be
deliverable. Policy PM13 also requires quantitative standards to be justified,
proportionate and not to have an adverse impact on viability and deliverability.
5.48. TCE supports the objective of increasing affordable housing delivery. However,
affordable housing requirements, including any requirements associated with Green Belt
release, should be tested through robust viability evidence. This will be particularly
important where sites are expected to deliver affordable housing, infrastructure, open
space, biodiversity net gain, sustainable drainage, transport improvements and other
policy requirements.
5.49. TCE’s landholdings offer the potential to deliver a range of housing types and tenures.
Smaller sites at Plumley and Knutsford could contribute to housing choice and earlier
delivery. Larger strategic opportunities within the wider Tabley Estate around Knutsford
could support mixed communities with affordable housing, older persons housing,
specialist accommodation and a range of market housing types where justified by
evidence.
5.50. The August 2026 NPPF also places emphasis on small and medium-sized sites. Policy
HO6 requires local plans to allocate land to accommodate at least 10% of the housing
requirement on sites no larger than one hectare and a further 10% on sites between 1
and 2.5 hectares, unless there are strong reasons why this cannot be achieved.
5.51. The smaller TCE sites at Plumley and around Knutsford should be assessed in this
context. They may provide opportunities to diversify supply, support early delivery, assist
small and medium-sized builders, and contribute to the vitality of smaller settlements.
Employment and Economy
5.52. TCE supports the preparation of updated evidence on economic development needs and
employment land requirements. The Local Plan should ensure that employment land
supply is sufficient to support Cheshire East’s economic growth ambitions and that
housing growth is planned alongside employment growth.
5.53. The Local Plan should consider employment land not only through standalone
employment allocations, but also through mixed-use growth opportunities. Mixed-use
strategic sites can help create balanced communities, provide local jobs, reduce
commuting and support services.
5.54. Opportunities around Knutsford are particularly relevant to the relationship between
housing and employment growth. As a Key Service Centre with strong connections to the
strategic highway network, Manchester Airport, Greater Manchester and the wider
Cheshire and Warrington economy, Knutsford is capable of accommodating growth that
supports both housing and employment objectives. The Council should therefore assess
opportunities around the settlement not only in terms of housing delivery but also in
relation to their potential contribution towards employment growth, investment, labour
market accessibility and wider economic objectives.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
5.55. Opportunities within the wider Tabley Estate may also provide scope for the Council to
consider how housing growth, employment provision, infrastructure investment and
sustainable transport improvements can be planned in a coordinated manner. Whilst the
scale and form of any future development should be informed through the evidence
base, Economic Development Needs Assessment and Employment Land Review, these
opportunities should be assessed having regard to their potential contribution towards
Cheshire East's long-term economic competitiveness, job creation and wider economic
growth objectives.
Transport and Infrastructure
5.56. TCE supports the Council’s recognition that transport and infrastructure will be central to
the delivery of sustainable growth. The new Local Plan should integrate transport,
utilities, education, healthcare, digital infrastructure, green infrastructure and
community facilities with the spatial strategy and site allocation process.
5.57. Policy TR1 of the August 2026 NPPF requires sustainable transport considerations to be
addressed from the earliest stages of plan-making. It requires plans to locate
development where it can support sustainable patterns of movement and make effective
use of existing or proposed transport infrastructure.
5.58. TCE considers that transport accessibility should be a central factor in determining the
spatial strategy. The Council should consider public transport accessibility, rail
connectivity, active travel potential, access to services, relationship to strategic highway
corridors and the ability of development to support infrastructure improvements.
5.59. TCE’s landholdings around Knutsford and the wider Tabley Estate are well related to the
strategic highway network, including the M6 corridor, and to Knutsford’s role as a Key
Service Centre. The Plumley sites are particularly relevant because of their proximity to
Plumley railway station.
5.60. The Local Plan should therefore assess station-related growth opportunities in a positive
and evidence-led way. In particular, Plumley should be assessed not only by reference to
its current settlement classification, but also by reference to its rail connectivity and the
potential for planned growth to support sustainable travel patterns.
5.61. Infrastructure requirements should be viewed not only as constraints, but also as
opportunities. Larger strategic sites can help deliver new infrastructure, green
infrastructure, active travel routes and community facilities in a coordinated way. This is
particularly relevant to TCE’s larger scale land interests around Knutsford and within the
wider Tabley Estate, where the scale of development could support comprehensive
infrastructure planning.
Local Plan Evidence Base
5.62. TCE supports the preparation of a robust, proportionate and up-to-date evidence base.
This will be critical to ensuring that the Local Plan is justified, effective and capable of
meeting development needs.
5.63. TCE considers that the following evidence will be particularly important:
 Green Belt Assessment;
 Grey Belt assessment;
 Land Availability Assessment;
 Settlement Hierarchy Review;The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
 Spatial Distribution Report;
 Housing Needs Assessment;
 Economic Development Needs Assessment;
 Employment Land Review;
 Infrastructure Delivery Plan;
 Viability Assessment;
 Sustainability Appraisal;
 Heritage Assessment;
 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment;
 transport evidence; and
 Environmental and landscape evidence.
5.64. The Council should publish key methodologies and emerging findings at the earliest
appropriate stage to allow meaningful engagement. This is particularly important in
relation to the Green Belt Assessment, Grey Belt findings, Settlement Hierarchy Review,
Land Availability Assessment and Spatial Distribution Report.
5.65. The evidence base should be capable of assessing different site typologies consistently
and fairly. It should not apply a methodology that unintentionally favours only small sites,
only urban sites, or only previously developed land. Existing allocations, safeguarded
land, smaller and medium-sized sites, urban extensions and new settlement options
should all be assessed in a manner appropriate to their scale and potential contribution.
5.66. TCE requests that its landholdings across the Tabley Estate are assessed fully through
this process and that their potential contribution to housing, employment, infrastructure,
environmental enhancement and sustainable transport is considered on a consistent
basis with other promoted sites.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
6. Proposed Local Plan
Engagement Strategy
Engagement approach and methods
6.1. TCE supports continued engagement with landowners, site promoters, infrastructure
providers, communities and other stakeholders throughout the plan-making process.
Effective engagement will be essential to ensuring that the Local Plan is informed by
realistic evidence on site availability, deliverability, infrastructure requirements and
phasing.
6.2. For strategic sites, engagement should allow promoters to clarify technical evidence,
infrastructure assumptions, access arrangements, phasing, masterplanning principles
and delivery timescales. This will assist the Council in assessing sites accurately and
consistently.
6.3. This is particularly important for larger opportunities such as those within the wider
Tabley Estate, where careful consideration will be required in relation to infrastructure,
transport, landscape, ecology, heritage, phasing and long-term stewardship.
6.4. TCE would welcome continued engagement with Cheshire East Council as the new Local
Plan progresses, including discussions regarding the emerging evidence base, site
assessment methodology, Green Belt Assessment, Settlement Hierarchy Review,
infrastructure requirements and spatial strategy.
Plan programme and timeline
6.5. TCE supports the Council's proposed programme for Local Plan preparation. Given the
scale of housing need now facing Cheshire East and the Council's current housing land
supply position, it is important that the Local Plan continues to progress without
unnecessary delay.
6.6. Delays in plan preparation risk extending the period during which development decisions
are made in the absence of an up-to-date plan-led strategy. The Council should therefore
seek to maintain momentum, ensure that key evidence is prepared and made available
to stakeholders at an early stage, and continue engagement with stakeholders
throughout the process.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
7. Conclusion
7.1. TCE supports the preparation of a positively prepared, ambitious and deliverable Local
Plan for Cheshire East. The new Local Plan is being prepared in a materially changed
planning context, including a significantly increased housing requirement, the Council’s
current housing land supply position, the new plan-making system, the emerging
Cheshire and Warrington Spatial Development Strategy and the publication of the August
2026 NPPF during the consultation period.
7.2. TCE considers that the Local Plan should plan to meet the revised standard method
housing requirement as a minimum and should test whether a higher housing
requirement is justified having regard to economic growth, affordable housing need,
infrastructure investment and emerging sub-regional priorities.
7.3. The Local Plan should identify a sufficient supply and mix of deliverable and developable
sites, including brownfield sites, existing allocations, safeguarded land, smaller and
medium-sized sites, sustainable urban extensions, station-related growth and potential
new settlement opportunities. Pending adoption of the new Local Plan, the Council
should also adopt a positive interim approach to sustainable and deliverable proposals
on safeguarded land to support short-term housing delivery.
7.4. A review of the Green Belt will be a necessary and important part of the plan-making
process. The Green Belt Assessment should be robust, transparent and sufficiently
detailed to identify variations in Green Belt performance. It should also consider the
sustainability of locations and the ability of development to deliver infrastructure,
services and environmental benefits.
7.5. TCE's land interests demonstrate that opportunities exist across a range of locations and
planning contexts within Cheshire East. These include allocated and safeguarded land
around Knutsford, opportunities around Plumley and larger-scale opportunities within
the wider Tabley Estate. Taken together, these locations provide a range of alternatives
capable of being assessed through the emerging evidence base as the Council considers
how best to accommodate future housing, employment and infrastructure requirements
and establish a sustainable and deliverable spatial strategy. TCE therefore requests that
Cheshire East Council assesses its landholdings fully and positively through the
emerging evidence base, publishes key methodologies and findings early enough to
enable meaningful engagement, and continues direct dialogue with TCE as the Local
Plan progresses. This will help ensure that the Plan is ambitious, deliverable and capable
of meeting Cheshire East’s housing, employment, infrastructure and environmental
objectives over the full plan period.The Crown Estate | Representations to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026
This report has been prepared for The Crown Estate and on the understanding that it will be made publicly available.
All copyright and other proprietary rights in the report remain the property of Deloitte LLP and any rights not expressly granted in these terms or in the Contract are
reserved.
The information contained within this report is provided to assist The Crown Estate with this Representation to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
The report makes use of a range of third party data sources. Whilst every reasonable care has been taken in compiling this report, Deloitte LLP cannot guarantee its
accuracy.
No party other than The Crown Estate is entitled to rely on the report for any purpose whatsoever and thus we accept no liability to any other party who is shown or
gains access to this document. This document should be used solely for the purpose described in the Report, is confidential and it is not to be copied or made
available to any other party without the Consultant’s prior written consent (except where required by law, court order or regulatory authority). The Client may
disclose this document to its Affiliates and to its legal advisers on a need to know basis in connection with the project to which the Works Order relates. Deloitte LLP
does not accept any liability for use of or reliance on the contents of this document by any person save by the intended recipient(s) to the extent agreed in a Deloitte
LLP engagement contract. If any other party places reliance on this document they do so at their own risk and have no recourse to the Consultant.
Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675 and its registered office at 1 New Street Square,
London, EC4A 3HQ, United Kingdom.
Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom affiliate of Deloitte NSE LLP, a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee
(“DTTL”). DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL and Deloitte NSE LLP do not provide services to clients. Please see
www.deloitte.com/about to learn more about our global network of member firms. Real Estate Services regulated by RICS.
© 2026 Deloitte LLP. All rights reserved.

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited (trading as “Lichfields”) is registered in England, no. 2778116
Registered office at The Minster Building, 21 Mincing Lane, London EC3R 7AG
Cheshire East Council
Delamere House
Delamere Street
Crewe
CW1 2LL
Date: 1 September 2026
Our ref: 72952/01/BOC/jhel/41541864v1
To Whom It May Concern
Representations to Cheshire East Council’s Local Plan Scoping
Consultation
On behalf of our client, Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd [Taylor Wimpey], we are pleased to provide
representations to Cheshire East Council’s [the Council] Local Plan Scoping Consultation. The
representations have been prepared in respect of Taylor Wimpey’s land interests at Middlewich Road,
Crewe; Dean Row Road, Wilmslow; and Crewe Road, Shavington.
A Written Ministerial Statement made on 27th November 2025 highlights the Government’s intention to
move towards a new plan-making system. The Council has given a notice of commencement of a new
Local Plan for Cheshire East, replacing the Local Plan Strategy [LPS] and Site Allocations and
Development Policies Document [SADPD], in accordance with Regulation 20 Town and Country
Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026.
The new Local Plan will be prepared in accordance with the new plan making process and will be
produced within a 30-month formal period. It is important to state at the outset that Taylor Wimpey
welcomes the efforts made by the Council in the preparation of a new Local Plan for the Borough and
plan positively to meet the Borough’s future needs.
The representations consider the key themes outlined by the Council in the context of the recently
published National Planning Policy Framework [the NPPF] (published August 2026). The
representations comment on scope of the Council’s emerging Local Plan to help to ensure that it best
addresses identified housing and infrastructure needs. The representations then detail the opportunity
provided by Taylor Wimpey’s land interests within the Borough in assisting the Council to meet its
housing requirements over the next plan period.
Response to the Scoping Consultation
The Council’s Scoping Consultation provides high level commentary on the scope, vision, and objectives
for the new Local Plan, albeit detail on specific policies is not provided at this time. Responses are
provided to the key areas of interest to Taylor Wimpey subsequently.Pg 2/12
41541864v1
Increase in Housing Requirements
The Council’s adopted housing requirement is established under LPS Policy PG 1 (Overall Development
Strategy), which confirms a minimum requirement of 36,000 new homes for the 2010-30 plan period,
averaging 1,800 net additional dwellings per year for this period. That said, the Council acknowledge
within the Scoping Consultation document that since the adoption of the LPS in 2017, its local housing
need [LHN] has increased significantly to 2,530 dwellings per annum [dpa] as calculated using the
standard method.
NPPF Policy HO1 (Assessing the need for housing) (1)(a) confirms that Local Plans should consider for
the overall number of homes needed in the area as a minimum over the plan period, as calculated using
the standard method. This requirement is reiterated at NPPF Policy S1 (Positive plan-making), which
confirms that Local Plans should seek to meet development needs of their area as a minimum, which
means providing for objectively assessed needs for housing. In light of the Council’s existing five year
housing land supply position (most recently confirmed at 3.3 years at 1 April 2025 within the Housing
Monitoring Update 2024/25), Taylor Wimpey strongly considers that the Council should be taking a
positive approach and plan for growth above this minimum figure.
NPPF Policy HO2 (Setting requirement figures for homes) (3) goes on to confirm that housing
requirement figures should reflect the extent to which the identified needs of the area can be
accommodated over the plan period as a minimum; and, the requirement may be higher than the
identified housing need if, for example, it includes provision for neighbouring areas or reflects growth
ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment.
NPPF Policy PM2 (Local plans) (1)(b) notes that Local Plans should pursue a plan period of no less than
10 years from the point of adoption, with longer time periods appropriate where this would help
support the delivery of longer-term infrastructure or strategic development.
The housing requirement pursued by the Council should seek to meet its LHN as calculated using the
standard method at the time of publication as a minimum (currently 2,530 dpa), albeit it would be
pragmatic for the Council to plan for a greater number of new homes to ensure that increasing needs are
met, and owing to the relatively unaffordable nature of much of the Borough. Pursuing a housing target
in excess of the Council’s LHN, and identifying sufficient land to do so, would ensure that existing
shortfalls do not continue to exacerbate and the longer term impacts of the Council’s current land
supply position can be overcome.
The Council should additionally look to plan for a period longer than the 10 year minimum, which
would support the delivery of strategic sites and key infrastructure across the Borough. Given the
Council will need to look at large strategic sites, including urban expansions and potentially new
settlements, pursuing a longer plan period that would facilitate the delivery of such projects in a holistic
manner, reducing the risk of incoherent, piecemeal development jeopardising overarching ambitions.
Furthermore, there are significant infrastructure projects planned in the Borough, including but not
limited to a new station at Leighton and significant investment to Crewe Station; pursuing a longer plan
period reflective of infrastructure delivery timescales would support the delivery of such infrastructure
projects and aid in securing financial backing through the provision of new homes. A longer plan period
would account for the significant lead in times associated with strategic sites and major infrastructure
projects and also allow for an appropriately stepped housing land supply.Pg 3/12
41541864v1
Changes to Green Belt Policy
The Scoping Consultation document acknowledges that the changes to the NPPF confirm that a
shortfall of new homes or business space is a valid reason to change Green Belt boundaries after
considering other reasonable options for meeting development needs. Additionally, the document
acknowledges the introduction of ‘grey belt’ land and confirms that where there is a need to alter the
Green Belt boundaries, then grey belt land should be considered first and is sequentially preferable to
other land within the Green Belt.
As set out in Policy GB3 (Altering existing Green Belt boundaries) (1), Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered through the preparation and updating of local plans and where exceptional
circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. Policy GB3 (2) outlines that exceptional circumstances
in this context include a Local Planning Authority [LPA] being unable to meet its identified need for
development in full, having examined all other options for doing so, including making as much use as
possible of suitable previously developed and underutilised land; optimising the density of
development; and, assessing whether sufficient suitable sites can be identified outside the Green Belt.
Furthermore, NPPF Policy GB4 (Defining Green Belt boundaries) (1)(g) confirms that Local Plans
should also identify areas of safeguarded land, where necessary to meet longer-term development needs
well beyond the plan period. This is of particular importance given minimum plan period has reduced
to ten years as set out under NPPF Policy PM2 (Local plans), therefore now is the time to proactively
identify sites for beyond the plan period.
In this regard, Taylor Wimpey requests that the Council take a considered approach to the changes to
Green Belt policy, and release suitable ‘grey belt’ land from the Green Belt as part of the preparation of
the Local Plan, alongside the allocation of unconstrained and deliverable open countryside sites. The
quantum of release of grey belt land and open countryside will depend on the availability of suitable
sites in the urban area and respond to the overall spatial strategy proposed by the Plan too.
It should be noted that Taylor Wimpey considers that exceptional circumstances do exist, given the
current undersupply of housing land that has required safeguarded sites to come forward for
development, and need for development to make best of use of land whilst still achieving appropriate
densities in response to local context.
The northern settlements in the borough are heavily constrained by the Green Belt, which tightly
encloses key settlements in the Borough including Macclesfield’s (Principal Town), and Handforth,
Knutsford, Poynton, and Wilmslow (Key Service Centres). As such, it is essential that Green Belt land
comes forward for development in the next plan period to ensure that the need for new homes in the
Borough’s settlements is met, and infrastructure and community facilities are supported. This is of
particular importance given the Council’s significant undersupply of housing land, with an immediate
deficit of 4,282 units confirmed in the Housing Monitoring Update 2024/25, and limited brownfield
land supply, with a capacity of just 1,221 dwellings on sites without planning permission included in the
Council’s Brownfield Land Register (March 2026).
Alongside this, greenfield sites within the open countryside must be allocated in the south of the
Borough where Green Belt designations are not as widespread, ensuring that a balanced approach to
meeting needs across the Borough as a whole is pursued and alignment with the spatial strategy of thePg 4/12
41541864v1
emerging Plan. This would ultimately ensure that sustainable development in the Borough is secured,
in line with the provisions of NPPF Chapter 4 (Achieving sustainable development).
Spatial Development Strategy
The Scoping Consultation document notes that Cheshire East is now part of the Cheshire and
Warrington Combined Authority area, and a Spatial Development Strategy [SDS] will be prepared for
Cheshire and Warrington in due course. The Council does however acknowledge that Local Plan
preparation should not be delayed, and the Council will continue to work closely with the Combined
Authority and neighbouring Councils to ensure a coordinated approach to planning and evidence.
Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s efforts to bring forward a new Local Plan instead of waiting for
the SDS to govern the spatial framework and strategy for the Borough. Owing to the date of adoption of
the LPS (2017) which provides the strategic policies for the Borough, this is now out of date and
therefore a new Local Plan is required to ensure development in Cheshire East comes forward in a planled manner. Given the relative uncertainty surrounding SDS’s and the timescales involved, the
Council’s intentions to progress the Local Plan are welcomed.
Planning for Growth
The NPPF continues to set out a presumption in favour of sustainable development; NPPF Policy S1
(Positive plan-making) confirms that the development plan should plan positively for future growth and
change by seeking to meet the development needs of the area, as a minimum, and providing for new
development in a way that promotes a sustainable pattern of growth.
The Scoping Consultation document sets out that the amount of development to be planned for will be
informed by evidence including future housing and employment needs, infrastructure capacity,
environmental constraints and opportunities for regeneration. Taylor Wimpey supports this approach
and requests that a balanced approach to housing development is taken, through the allocation of
sustainably located, physically unconstrained and deliverable sites to ensure that new homes can come
forward in the early years of the next plan period and address current undersupply challenges,
alongside the identification of strategic sites which can support new infrastructure and the creation of
new communities with delivery later in the plan period.
As part of the Council’s Planning for Growth objective, the role of Neighbourhood Plans must be
appropriately considered. Emerging Neighbourhood Plans must not seek to restrict development
within the Borough’s settlements ahead of the new Local Plan coming forward, and any Neighbourhood
Plans made prior to its adoption must appropriately consider the development requirements for the
Borough as a whole, ensuring that neighbourhood plan figures are not superseded when strategic
policies are adopted and that they remain in general conformity with the strategic policies for the
authority.
Settlement Hierarchy
Within the Scoping Consultation document, it is noted that the Council will seek to include a settlement
hierarchy within the new Local Plan, considering provision of services and facilities, population, jobs,
sustainable transport, retail provision and settlement form.Pg 5/12
41541864v1
In this regard, Taylor Wimpey supports the settlement hierarchy included under LPS Policy PG 2
(Settlement Hierarchy). Whilst Crewe and Macclesfield are identified as the only Principal Towns, the
Borough also includes Key Service Centres (including Wilmslow) and Local Service Centres (including
Shavington) which all have reasonable sustainability credentials and will need to accommodate growth
in the future. Other settlements and rural areas are also identified (including 35 ‘infill villages’).
Whilst the spatial distribution of development should be informed by the settlement hierarchy (to direct
development to most sustainable settlements, particularly the top three tiers), the hierarchy must not
prevent development in lower tiered locations from coming forward and each settlement must take
some growth to support local services and facilities. Opportunities must be provided for the applicant
to demonstrate that the site is sustainably located in accordance with local and national planning policy
on a site-by-site basis.
Spatial Distribution
The Scoping Document confirms that once the overall amount of development has been determined for
the new Local Plan, the Council will establish a strategy for the distribution of this development across
the Borough. It is noted that there are a number of factors that will influence the distribution of
development, including:
• Housing demand and availability, house prices and affordability ratios, level of affordable housing
need, need for specialist housing (such as for older people), availability of jobs, commuting patterns,
infrastructure capacity and constraints, and the level of services and facilities.
• Landscape character, nature and ecology issues, heritage matters, flood risk, agricultural land
quality, open spaces and other green infrastructure, Green Belt and strategic green gap
designations.
• Amount of brownfield and urban land that may become available for re-use, availability of
development sites, market attractiveness of locations, development viability.
It goes on to state that given the scale of development that is likely to be required, a range of options for
the distribution of development may be included, potentially including opportunities for densification
and further development within existing settlements, edge of settlement growth, large-scale urban
extensions and new settlements.
Taylor Wimpey supports the consideration of a range of options to accommodate development going
forward. Whilst the NPPF Policy L1 (Planning for an effective use of land) seeks to make effective use of
land, the strategy must not overly rely on the densification of brownfield sites given the increased
likelihood of technical and viability constraints delaying residential development coming forward on
such sites. The spatial distribution ultimately pursued by the Council must recognise the value of
greenfield development and the sustainability credentials that edge of settlement sites offer, particularly
in the Borough’s principal towns, key service centres, and local service centres.
A varied spatial strategy that involves the development of a wide range of within settlement and edge of
settlement sites (including both land within the open countryside and Green Belt depending on the
location within the Borough) will build in flexibility to the Council’s housing delivery, and ensure that a
sufficient number of homes are brought forward under the new Local Plan.Pg 6/12
41541864v1
Development in the Countryside
With regard to development in the Countryside the Scoping Consultation document refers back to the
approach to development outside of settlements set out in the NPPF National Decision-Making Policies.
As proposed, these restrict development to certain forms, or where specific criteria are met. It is noted
that the new Local Plan will consider whether any local policies are needed that are in accordance with,
but do not repeat the national decision-making policies.
Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s intention to allow development in the Countryside (outside of
settlements) to be determined in accordance with the NPPF, for which NPPF Policy S5 (Principle of
development outside settlements) is of particular consideration. The Council must ensure that any local
policies do not restrict development in the Countryside further, ultimately allowing applications to be
determined in accordance with Policy S5.
Housing
Within the Consultation document, the Council recognises the importance of the provision of new
homes as a priority for the new Local Plan, and the requirement for a Housing Needs Assessment
[HNA] to inform the emerging policies relating to affordable housing, mix and tenure.
Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s commitment to prepare an HNA, however the Council must
ensure that irrespective of the HNAs findings housing mix and tenure requirements flexible and not
applied rigidly across suburban sites only, particularly given the provisions of NPPF Policy HO8
(Providing affordable homes) (3) discussed subsequently. The findings of the HNA need to be fully
considered in the context of the overall supply position in the Borough and policy shaped in this
context.
The numerous areas outlined for consideration in the consultation document are discussed
subsequently.
Affordable Housing
Within the Scoping Consultation document, the Council acknowledges the affordability issues that
persist in the Borough, and confirms the emphasis placed on this key component of new residential
development. Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of affordable
housing, and the commitment to establish affordable housing requirements, including the overall
number of homes to be provided, and the tenure mix, informed by evidence on housing needs and
development viability.
That said, Taylor Wimpey requests that the Council applies flexibility in the application of such
requirements, and the viability implications of affordable housing provision are genuinely considered.
This is of particular importance in the context of the Green Belt release that will be required in the
Borough, and the higher affordable housing requirement that may be pursued on such sites. Sufficient
flexibility should be included in any emerging policy that allows site specific constraints and market
factors to be considered when determining the affordable housing provision that is viable to ensure the
development of otherwise deliverable sites is not precluded.Pg 7/12
41541864v1
Housing Mix
In relation to housing mix, the Scoping Consultation sets out that updated evidence is being prepared
through the HNA, which will identify the housing requirements of families, older people, smaller
households, people with disabilities and those needing affordable housing, from which mix
requirements will be determined.
Whilst Taylor Wimpey supports an evidence-based approach to determining requirements, sufficient
flexibility should be incorporated in the relevant policies to ensure development is not precluded, and
an understanding should be held that not all sites can deliver every type of new home.
Furthermore, the NPPF Policy HO8 (Providing affordable homes) (3) confirms that where development
proposals meet or exceed up-to-date development plan requirements for the proportion and mix of
affordable housing tenures, a flexible approach should be taken to the size of market homes, taking into
account prevailing market conditions. It is therefore key that sufficient flexibility is built into any
policies pursued relating to housing mix to allow development to come forward that is reflective of
market conditions, and limit such restrictions rendering development undeliverable.
Taylor Wimpey would welcome further engagement with the Council to help inform such requirements,
owing to its local knowledge and experience in dealing with the local market.
Housing for Older People and Specialist Accommodation
The Scoping Consultation document similarly notes the need for new housing to reflect changing
demographics, with the needs of older people highlighted in particular. It is confirmed that the amount
and type of specialist housing needed and how this can best be accommodated will be determined using
the findings of the HNA.
Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s intention to determine requirements for housing for older people
and specialist accommodation requirements through an evidence-based approach, however any such
provision required to be provided within new developments must be appropriately considered. Whilst
NPPF Policy HO5 (Meeting the needs of different groups) confirms that Local Plans should set out the
proportion of housing on major developments to be delivered to requirements M4(2) and M4(3) of the
Building Regulations, and indicates that no less than 40% of homes on major developments are
delivered to M4(2) standards, the viability impacts of M4(2) and M4(3) must be fully considered.
M4(3) provision in particular comes with significant additional costs to deliver, impacts on density, and
achievability issues where onsite constraints prevent delivery, therefore pursuing an excessive
requirement of such units may threaten the deliverability of otherwise viable development.
Taylor Wimpey therefore requests that the impact of accessibility standards and requirements for
specialist accommodation are fully considered in an upcoming viability assessment, and that any
policies covering such requirements have an appropriate degree of flexibility built in.
Self-Build and Custom-Build Housing
The Scoping Consultation document states that the Local Plan will assess and meet demand for selfbuild and custom-build housing, and approaches under consideration include the retention of existingPg 8/12
41541864v1
policy or stronger measures to diversify and increase provision, including requiring co-housing, selfbuild and custom-build opportunities as part of the housing mix on larger development sites.
SADPD Policy HOU 3 (Self and custom build dwellings) currently requires that on all housing
developments providing 30 or more homes, a proportion of serviced plots should be provided, where
there is evidence of unmet demand. Plots delivered through this requirement should be marketed as
self/custom build opportunities for a minimum of 1 year, after which they can revert to open market
housing.
Taylor Wimpey considers that the provisions of the existing policy requirements are sufficient in this
regard, and measures to strengthen requirements should not be pursued. It should be noted individuals
seeking self- and custom-build properties are generally less attracted to plots within major development
sites, seeking more bespoke opportunities, therefore the rigid requirement for such provision on large
housing sites is often unattractive to such individuals. Any emerging policy should retain a degree of
flexibility to ensure that such provision does not restrict development, and overriding need and market
requirements preside.
Taylor Wimpey additionally requests that a similar claw back measure is included in any emerging
policy, allowing the conversion of any required provision to market housing where demand is limited.
Housing Standards
Within the Scoping Consultation document, it is noted that the Council may pursue tighter
requirements relating to accessibility and wheelchair standards and water efficiency standards, and may
carry forward the requirement for all new homes to meet Nationally Described Space Standard [NDSS].
NPPF Policy PM13 (Setting standards) (1)(b) confirms that Local Plan policies should not cover matters
that are already addressed by Building Regulations, with limited exceptions. The Policy confirms that
where tighter requirements are pursued, they must be justified.
Taylor Wimpey has concerns around the potential pursuance of tighter standards where evidence
determines this is necessary in principle. However, the viability impacts of pursuing requirements in
excess of the Building Requirements and those set out in the NPPF must be fully considered within the
subsequent Local Plan viability assessment. Again, sufficient flexibility should be applied within such
policy requirements to ensure they do not preclude development, particularly for aspects already
governed by other standards.
Climate Change Adaptation
With regard to climate change adaptation, the Scoping Consultation document sets out that the Local
Plan will seek to promote resilience through its strategic approach to growth distribution and measures
such as passive building design, shading and natural ventilation, green roofs and walls, improved water
efficiency, flood risk management, sustainable drainage systems, climate-resilient landscaping, and
technologies such as energy storage and smart electric vehicle charging. Requirements to reduce
carbon emissions, renewable and low carbon energy, and energy efficiency measures are discussed in
greater detail.Pg 9/12
41541864v1
Taylor Wimpey supports the Council’s efforts in ensuring new development responds to climate change
and seeks to minimise its impact. In this regard, it should be noted that new homes are much more
energy efficient than their older counterparts; new homes on average achieve an Energy Performance
Certificate [EPC] score of 84 (Band B) whereas the existing housing stock had a median score of 69
(Band C).
It should be noted that whilst NPPF Policy PM13 (Setting standards) allows local planning policy to
consider energy efficiency, any standards that go beyond the current or proposed Building Regulations
should have a clear and robustly costed rationale which shows that there will not be an adverse impact
on the viability and deliverability of development. Taylor Wimpey therefore requests that energy
efficiency policies relate back to the Building Regulations to ensure that such policy does not become
out of date owing to subsequent updates, and ensuring consistency across Cheshire and Warrington.
That said, if the Council pursues a higher standard, this must be fully justified and the viability impacts
considered as part of the Local Plan viability assessment.
Design
The Scoping Consultation Document sets out the significance of design as a consideration in the new
Local Plan, and confirms that the new Local Plan will need to establish a clear design and placemaking
framework that balances strategic direction with detailed design control to deliver high-quality,
sustainable and locally distinctive places across Cheshire East. It is noted that the Local Plan could
include a spatial assessment of design and placemaking issues; identify where design codes,
masterplans or other design tools are required; address matters such as local character, important
views, density and efficient land use; and establish mechanisms for design review, monitoring and
updating.
Taylor Wimpey supports the efforts made by the Council in ensuring new development is well designed
and supports the delivery of sustainable and locally distinctive places. That said, it is essential that the
Council recognises the role played by national housebuilders, and that such requirements are not overly
prescriptive or restrictive for new development. Sufficient flexibility should be embedded into design
related policies, and subsequent Design Code, to ensure that new development is appropriately guided,
without deterring development. There is also a need for flexibility in application of design policies with
differing potential approaches, for example to site specific characteristics and constraints, and
prevailing local character.
Local Plan Evidence Base
The Consultation document notes that the new Local Plan will be informed by a wide range of
documents. That said, no provisions for a Green Belt Assessment are included within the proposed
evidence base. Given the policy constraints in the north of the Borough particularly surrounding the
settlements of Macclesfield (Principal Town), and Handforth, Knutsford, Poynton, and Wilmslow (Key
Service Centres), a new Green Belt Assessment is required to facilitate the identification of the most
suitable grey belt sites for release. NPPF Policy GB2 (Assessing existing Green Belt land) confirms that
the preparation of spatial development strategies should be informed by an assessment of the strategic
role of Green Belt land within the strategy area. Given the new Local Plan is coming forward ahead of
the Cheshire and Warrington SDS, the Council should seek to prepare a Green Belt Assessment as partPg 10/12
41541864v1
of its evidence base, allowing for the removal of ‘grey belt’ sites to meet development needs as required,
given such sites are sequentially preferable to other Green Belt land.
Furthermore, as the Council was awarded £70,000 as part of the Green Belt Review Fund, a
commitment should be made by the Council to prepare this key evidence base document to inform the
new Local Plan.
Taylor Wimpey would additionally like to highlight the requirement for an updated viability assessment
as part of the Local Plan evidence base. The inclusion of an updated viability assessment in the
suggested new evidence base is supported and will be fundamental in ensuring new development is
deliverable within the Borough. The findings of the updated viability assessment should be fed through
to the Community Infrastructure Levy [CIL] Charging Schedule, and the implications of CIL charges on
new developments should be acknowledged and appropriately considered. Taylor Wimpey additionally
requests that the CIL charging zone boundaries are reviewed to ensure that allocated sites are included
in the appropriate residential zones rather than subject to the significantly higher Green Belt/open
countryside charges (Zones 4 and 5).
Taylor Wimpey’s Land Interests in Cheshire East
As noted previously in these representations, Taylor Wimpey has interest in three sites within the
Borough, each of which provides a suitable option for accommodating the development needs of the
Borough over the next plan period. The sites are discussed in turn subsequently.
Land at Middlewich Road, Crewe
Taylor Wimpey’s site at Middlewich Road comprises approximately 113 ha of land, and lies immediately
to the west of Crewe, the Principal Town in the adopted Cheshire East settlement hierarchy. The site
was submitted to the Council’s recent call for sites exercise, highlighting its ability to create a
sustainable urban extension to Crewe.
The site itself is identified as Open Countryside within the adopted Local Plan and is not designated as
Green Belt, nor does it lie within the Strategic Green Gaps which encompass much of the land
surrounding Crewe. The existing settlement and industrial site to the east, with the railway line to the
north have an urbanising effect on the site and its immediate surroundings.
The site’s development would form a logical, sustainable extension to the town whilst also reducing the
pressure on the Council to release the limited Green Belt land that does exist in the south of the
Borough. Technical assessments undertaken to date have not identified any significant constraints that
would preclude its development and whilst the preferred approach is for the Site to be identified as a
draft allocation in the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan, Taylor Wimpey is also open to progressing an
early planning application to support the Council’s housing land supply position.
The site in particular benefits from its proximity to the recently announced Leighton Station, the
location for which is immediately northeast of the site. The Middlewich Road site would bring new
residents into the immediate vicinity of this asset, which would bring significant sustainability benefits
to an urban extension in its vicinity, whilst also supporting the business case for this piece of significant
infrastructure.Pg 11/12
41541864v1
The site offers the opportunity to deliver a high-quality masterplanned development, including
community facilities, a local centre, green infrastructure and a country park. Taylor Wimpey is able to
progress an application at the earliest opportunity, with delivery possible in the early years of the next
Local Plan period. The site’s delivery would not only provide significant market and affordable housing
but also help protect the Council from speculative development that delivers fewer public benefits.
Land at Crewe Road, Shavington
Taylor Wimpey’s site at Crewe Road similarly provides an opportunity to accommodate new
development outside of the Borough’s Green Belt to the east of the settlement of Shavington and is
designated within the Open Countryside within the LPS. The site extends to approximately 10.9ha of
land currently in agricultural use, and was also submitted to the Council’s recent call for sites exercise
for consideration.
The site is bounded by Taylor Wimpey’s Cherry Tree Park residential development along its western
boundary, which was allocated in the LPS under Site LPS 10 East Shavington. The Cherry Tree Park site
was subject to an outline application for up to 275 dwellings, which was allowed at appeal on 25th July
2014 (ref: APP/R0660/A/13/2210660).
Technical assessments have already been undertaken to inform a pre-application enquiry at the site,
and no designations or constraints have been identified that would prevent residential development
coming forward at the site. At this early stage, technical matters relating to highways, flood risk,
drainage, ecology, have been investigated and it is not considered that any of these should preclude
residential development coming forward.
The site forms a logical extension to the east of Taylor Wimpey’s development, and represents the most
suitable, sustainable and deliverable site in Shavington for residential development. The development
of the site accords with the principles of sustainable development and Taylor Wimpey is currently
progressing with the preparation of a planning application for the development of the site in order to
assist the Council in meeting its market and affordable needs in the short term.
Land at Dean Row Road, Wilmslow
The site at Dean Row Road provides an opportunity to accommodate much needed development in the
settlement of Wilmslow, in the north of the Borough. The site lies on the eastern edge of Wilmslow, as
is partially identified as Safeguarded Land and partially designated as Green Belt in the adopted LPS.
The site extends to approximately 27.9 hectares of agricultural land, 9 hectares of which was
safeguarded for future development needs in the LPS and c. 19 hectares of which is Green Belt land.
Taylor Wimpey is promoting the site for the delivery of around 530 new homes, with Jones Homes as a
partner for the development, including both market and affordable dwellings, alongside public open
space, play areas, and ecological enhancement areas. The Site is deliverable and would form a logical
extension to Wilmslow, well contained by existing built form, natural boundary features, and the local
road network, and there are no known constraints which would prohibit its development.
The site was submitted to the Council’s 2026 call for sites exercise, and a live planning application (ref.
25/2071/FUL) for the development of 168 new homes on the safeguarded portion of the site
demonstrates the deliverability of the site, and opportunity to meet both short and longer term housingPg 12/12
41541864v1
needs. It is envisaged that an initial phase of development at Dean Row Road could be delivered shortly
after the grant of permission. The remainder of the site could deliver housing with the first five years
following its allocation, ensuring the Council can demonstrate a sufficient supply of housing land upon
adoption of the New Local Plan, and providing much needed delivery in the initial years of the plan
period.
It is considered that the proportion of the site designated as Green Belt comprises ‘grey belt’ land,
making no more than a limited contribution to purpose (a) and no contribution to purposes (b) and (d),
and as such should be considered to be sequentially preferable for release to other land within the Green
Belt. Given that it is considered that exceptional circumstances do exist to allow for Green Belt release,
the site provides a suitable opportunity for allocation in the emerging Local Plan.
Summary
Taylor Wimpey supports the efforts being made by the Council in progressing a new Local Plan,
however it is requested that the Council reflects the comments made in this letter when progressing
with the emerging Local Plan, taking account of the recently published NPPF.
In particular, the Council must take a realistic and proactive approach to planning for the Council’s
LHN, by allocating a range of sites for housing. Taylor Wimpey’s sites provide suitable options for
allocation, with full detail on their deliverability included in the associated call for sites submissions.
The development of any of the three sites set out above would form sustainable extensions to key
settlements within the Borough, whilst helping to address needs in the short term owing to Taylor
Wimpey’s ability to progress applications at the earliest opportunity and ability to deliver.
Taylor Wimpey would welcome a meeting with the Council in due course to discuss the scope of the new
Local Plan and the opportunities provided by its land interests in the Borough, for each of which further
technical work is progressing that would ultimately assist the Council in justifying the allocations at
examination.
We trust the contents of these representations are clear and would appreciate being kept informed of
progress with the emerging Local Plan. (REDACTED)
Yours faithfully

Please find attached to this email Gladman Development Ltd’s response to the above consultation for your consideration. I would be grateful if you could please confirm receipt of this submission.

I am writing in connection with the above consultation. I attach herewith representations made on behalf of Richborough Commercial. These representations follow the order of the Scoping Consultation and make use of the same headings and subheadings for ease of reference.

Please find attached representations on behalf of Cheshire Fresh Ltd to the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

Cheshire Fresh welcomes the opportunity to contribute positively to the preparation of the emerging Local Plan and welcomes further engagement with the Council.

Dear Strategic Planning Team,
NEW CHESHIRE EAST LOCAL PLAN – SCOPING CONSULTATION
Manchester Airport (MA) greatly welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the scoping
consultation for your new Local Plan. Our representations regarding Manchester Airport are
set out below under the relevant subheadings used in the Scoping Report .
About Manchester Airport
Manchester Airport is a strategically important component of the UK’s infrastructure
network and serves as the UK’s global gateway in the North. It is the largest airport outside
of London and third largest in the UK, handling 3 2.1 million passengers in 2025 and 95,000
tonnes of cargo. With 50 airlines operating to around 200 destinations, Manchester Airport
provides the North with valuable international connectivity and crucial links to overseas
markets. As such Manchester Airport is a major asset and engine of economic growth .
Operations annually generate £6.5 billion to the UK economy, combined with the
connectivity benefits of the airport which are valued at £4.4 billion.
Manchester Airport is also a major regional transport hub and public transport interchange
with rail, bus, coach and Metrolink facilities all located on site. This makes Manchester
Airport a strategically significant location in terms of its economic contribution, ex cellent
transport connections and opportunities for growth .
Manchester Airport therefore has a significant impact and influence on Cheshire East in
terms of its economic contribution to the borough (such as economic prosperity and
employment opportunities) and opportunities for transport connectivity , locally, regionally
and internationally .
While the majority of the Airport lies within Manchester City Council’s jurisdiction, p arts of
the Airport’s current Operational A rea and land ownership lie within Cheshire East, and
ongoing planning policy protection is required to ensure that the Airport’s operational safety,
efficiency , future development and growth are not compromised. It will be important to
achieve an appropriate balance between these factors when formulating policy for the new
L ocal P lan.
We are therefore extremely encouraged by the recognition that has already been given to
Manchester Airport in the scoping consultation and trust that our comments are helpful to
enable you to build on this.2
Section 3. Co ntext for the new Local Plan
National aviation policy
Paragraph 3.1 recognises that t he new L ocal P lan must accord with national policy. This
should include the most up to date Government aviation policy. The growth in UK aviation is
supported through a framework of national policy that seeks to promote the growth and
benefits of air transport whilst managing and mitigating the environmental effects. The
operation and future development of Manchester Airport is wholly aligned with this, helping
to deliver existing and emerging national aviation po licy. Ensuring a balance between the
economic, social, and environmental impacts of the UK aviation sector has been consistent
in Government policies encouraging airports to make best use of their existing capacity.
The principal statements of national aviation policy are:
• Aviation Policy Framework (2013) : This is the principal statement of national aviation
policy . The economic benefits are recognised, and growth is supported whilst
balancing environmental effects including climate change, aircraft noise and local air
quality. Airports are encouraged to prepare ‘masterplans ’ that set out how national
policy can be applied at an individual airport level (see further detail below). T he
Policy Framework also makes it clear that the future development of the airport
should be transparently considered in the preparation of L ocal P lans and contribute
to the plans of others. In respect of noise, the Framework states an objective to limit
and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by
aircraft noise. It supports the ICAO’s ‘balanced’ approach’ to aircraft noise
management and identifies land use planning and management as one of the four
principal tools.
• Beyond the horizon: The future of UK aviation – making best use of existing runways
(2018) : This encourages and supports airports beyond London Heathrow to make the
best use of their existing runways subject to local environmental issues being
addressed.
• Aviation 2050: the future of UK Aviation (2018)
• Flightpath to the Future (2022) : This reiterates that UK airports play a critical role in
global and domestic connectivity and that sustainable growth in airport capacity
continues to be supported where it is justified, and where it can be delivered within
the Government’s environmental obligations.
Other relevant national policy considerations include the Northern Growth Strategy (NGS)
(2026) which was included in the announcement of Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) in
January 2026. It is being developed to capitalise on the North’s leading industrial sectors
and unlock economic and investment opportunities in a Northern Growth Corridor . The NGS
is Government’s economic plan to boost growth in the North through major transport
investment (including a £45 billion commitment to NPR, £10.4 billion investment in local
transport and the £11 billion Transpennine Route upgrade already underway), city - region
regeneration, skills development, business innovation, and strengthened devolution. It is set
out in two core documents: Northern Growth Strategy: Case for Change (January 2026)3
Northern Growth Strategy: Case for change - GOV.UK and Northern Growth Strategy: Next
Steps (March 2026) Northern Growth Strategy: Next Steps - GOV.UK . The overall objective
is to close long - standing regional productivity gaps and support the North’s contribution to
the UK economy. It is a collaborative effort involving the Government, local authorities, and
businesses to create a more productive and resilient economy in the North. The economic
context for your emerging Local Plan would be strengthened by drawing on and aligning
with this wider economic plan for the North, ensuring that its contribution to Northern
growth is appropriately recognised.
Manchester Airport ‘masterplan’ - the Sustainable Development Plan
The ‘masterplan’ for Manchester Airport – who se preparation is encouraged by the Aviation
Policy Framework referenced above – is known as the Sustainable Development Plan (SDP) .
We strongly welcome your acknowledgment later in the scoping consultation ( paragraph
5.95) that the Manchester Airport Sustainable Development Plan (SDP) will form part of the
evidence base used to inform preparation of the Local Plan.
The Airport has a long history of preparing development plans / masterplans that publicly
and clearly set out the airport’s current and future land use requirements . The SDP defines
the long - term ambition for the Airport and sets out the strategic context and approach that
we intend to take for the Airport’s future operation and development . It details where growth
will occur and how we will manage and mitigate (environmentally) and exploit (economically
and socially) the effects of that growth.
The current version of our SDP was published in 2016 (Sustainable Development Plan |
Manchester Airport ). This has been recently updated , and a draft new SDP will be consulted
upon in September 2026 with a final version published around the turn of the year . The new
Local Plan should therefore have due regard to the new Manchester Airport SDP that is
being brought forward.
Economic growth (3.16)
Increasing economic growth and unlocking investment sits at the heart of the Government’s
planning reforms and ambitions for a growth - enabling planning system. Investment in
economic infrastructure, including airports, will be key to transforming the UK economy .
Airports are critical national infrastructure assets and vital engines of economic growth that
make a substantial contribution to regional and national economic performance. As such, we
urge you to give significant weight within the Local Plan to the economic contribution of
Manchester Airport to Cheshire East and its enabling role in driving economic growth.
Reference to the Airport as a driver of economic activity is absent in paragraph 3.16 of the
Scoping Report and this should be corrected at the next stage of plan - making.
Manchester Airport supports the efficient movement of people and goods, underpinning
supply chains, trade flows, and business connectivity across multiple sectors of the
economy. Manchester Airport also plays a vital role in enabling international freight and
logistics operations. Air freight provides a time - critical mode of transport for high value,
perishable, and advanced manufactured goods, supporting regional and national distribution
networks.
In terms of the economic contribution of Manchester Airport to Cheshire East, Manchester
Airport operations annually generate some £214 million in GVA to Cheshire East. The4
connectivity benefits of Manchester Airport, including gains in tourism, business
productivity and inward investment represent a further £241 million. This represents a total
value of £455 million annually for the Cheshire East economy.
Manchester Airport is also one of the largest employment sites in the North West, with
20,400 people working in over 140 on - site businesses. Most airport employees live in the
local area, with around 70% living in Greater Manchester or Cheshire, and with 8 8% living in
the North West region. The Airport also supports employment and economic activity in the
wider supply chain, across the local area, the North and throughout the UK. Our most recent
staff employment survey undertaken in 2025 shows that approximately 1,247 airport staff
live in Cheshire East , particularly in the towns of Wilmslow, Knutsford and Macclesfield.
Given these functions, it is important for Manchester Airport to be recognised within the
context of your Local Plan ’s economic policies and associated evidence base to ensure that
the benefits of the Airport’s substantial economic contribution to the borough are realised.
Alongside this, it should be ensured that Local Plan policy enables planning decisions to
give sufficient weight to the economic benefits of Manchester Airport when considering the
Airport’s future infrastructure requirements and affords appropriate support for Manchester
Airport’s operation and development . It is essential to safeguard the Airport’s land for
airport - related development and associated employment and logistics infrastructure to
accommodate the Airport’s long - term growth .
Section 4. Baseline information and spatial portrait
The location of Manchester Airport should be emphasised within the spatial portrait of the
borough , along with Manchester Airport’s role as the primary international gateway for the
North .
Connectivity (4.5)
Paragraph 4.5 of the scoping consultation recognises the location of Manchester Airport on
the edge of the borough and that the Airport further enhances the area’s connectivity , which
we welcome . Good transport links are crucial to supporting sustainable communities and
economic growth. As a key transport hub and international gateway, Manchester Airport
plays a major role in boosting the region’s connectivity and in doing so, meeting the
economic and social needs of Cheshire East residents.
Enhancing accessibility across the borough and improving transport links to Manchester
Airport should therefore be promoted as a priority in the new Local Plan. Supporting such
improvements will enable the borough to fully capitalise on the Airport’s international
connections and unlock the economic benefits that can help to deliver further growth and
development within Cheshire East.
Manchester Airport has a long - standing commitment to improving connectivity and
sustainable travel and, through our partnership working, to support the delivery of the
region’s economic and transport priorities. At the heart of our growth strategy is the need to
provide a transport network that is efficient, convenient, reliable and safe. Our policies,
targets and objectives are set out in our Surface Access Plan, which forms part of the
current Manchester Airport Sustainable Development Plan (2016), shortly to be replaced by
an updated Plan, and in our Staff Travel Plan .5
Economic contribution (4.6)
Please refer to our comments made under the ‘economic growth’ section above. The new
Local Plan should recognise the Airport’s role in the local and regional economy and its
economic contribution to the borough, including as a major employer. Reference to the
Airport in this regard is absent in paragraphs 4.6 - 4.10 of the Scoping Report, and this should
be corrected at the next stage of plan - making. We can assist in providing the latest
economic estimates of the Airport’s economic footprint, GVA contribution and employment
figures to support the Local Plan evidence base.
Section 5. Scope of the new Local Plan
Creating a vision and objectives (5.2 – 5.4)
We recommend that the Vision for Cheshire East includes recognition of Manchester Airport
as the primary international gateway for the Nort h and the opportunity to leverag e the
benefits of its location and its operations for the borough .
We also recommend that having accessible, frequent and reliable sustainable transport
choices should form a fundamental aspect of the Vision for the borough.
Planning for growth (5.5 – 5.14)
We welcome para graph 5.6 of the Scoping Report on supporting sustainable economic
growth . As per our comments made under the ‘economic growth’ and ‘economic
contribution’ sections above, the Local Plan should fully reflect the role of Manchester
Airport and its economic contribution and international connectivity in the planning for
sustainable economic growth and thereby ensure that it plans positively for airport - related
development and safeguards essential connectivity.
Please note the weight given within the new NPPF (August 2026) policy T R1(1)(e) to
“providing for any transport facilities that need to be located in the area, or for their
necessary expansion or adaptation, and the infrastructure and wider development required
to support them” and the direct reference to this including airports, freight interchanges and
public transport hubs.
Promoting sustainable transport and a vision - led approach to planning for transport is
fundamental to facilitating the conditions for long - term economic growth.
Green Belt (5.15 - 5.18)
We welcome a Green Belt Assessment being undertaken (para graph 5.18 of the Scoping
Report ) and look forward to reviewing its conclusions, including the identification of grey
belt land , in due course .
Development in settlement s / development in the countryside (5.27 – 5.29)
It is important that the Local Pl an draws appropriate ‘settlement’ boundaries given the new
NPPF ’s policy S4 and S5 relating to how development inside/outside settlement boundaries
should be treated.6
T he extent of the Airport within Cheshire East does not ordinarily form part of a ‘settlement ’
but is instead a separate, previously developed and actively used site that should be subject
to a standalone policy guiding its use and future development (as reflected in more detailed
comments further below) . It should not be included within a ‘settlement’ boundary subject
to NPPF ’s policy S4 but equally should not be considered outside a ‘settlement’ and subject
to NPPF policy S5 .
Housing (5.30 - 5.64)
We appreciate that the provision of sufficient, high - quality housing is a key function of the
Local Plan.
For any proposed housing allocations close to Manchester Airport, road access
arrangements should consider access to the airport to avoid undue pressure on the existing
road network and to safeguard the operation and planned growth of the Airport. Any policy
that is designed to increase housing supply in the borough is likely to bring more housing
and social infrastructure closer to Manchester Airport’s operation. The implications of this
can be significant and we therefore wish to emphasise the importance of ensuring that
residential development near the Airport is effectively controlled and mitigated, especially
within areas affected by aircraft noise and within the Airport’s safeguarded area , each of
which are outlined immediately below (and further on in our comments on the ‘transport and
infrastructure’ section of the Scoping Report) .
Whilst noise reduction, mitigation, and operational management is constantly undertaken at
airports and by the aviation industry, the land use planning system has, through poor policy
advice and decision making, led to increases in housing (or other noise sensitive
development) being allowed around airports, which has increased the number of people
exposed to aircraft noise. This runs contrary to the Aviation Policy Framework’s objective
to ‘limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by
aircraft noise’.
The aviation industry body ‘ Sustainable Aviation’ published its ‘Quieter Road - map’ in 2025
(SA_QuieterRoadmap_Report_Feb25.pdf ) to identify means that the Aviation Policy
Framework’s objective could be achieved. A chapter is devoted to land use planning and
the opportunity for the local plan - making process to contribute.
Preparation of the new Local Plan should also be informed by Manchester Airport’s statutory
Noise Action Plan (NAP). The UK’s major airports are required by the Environmental Noise
(England) Regulations 2006 to prepare a Noise Action Plan (NAP) that sets out the approach
and the measures to be taken to manage and control aircraft noise and community
disturbance. The current Manchester Airport Noise Action Plan (2024 - 2028) was adopted
by Defra in December 2024 ( Noise Action Plan 2024 - 2028 - Manchester Airport ) and a
summary of its contents will be contained in the draft Airport Sustainable Development Plan .
The NAP includes details of noise - related targets and commitments by the Airport and
reports on the progress that has been made over recent years. Of relevance to plan
making, the NAP sets out a long - term aim to ‘limit and reduce where possible, the number of
people affected by noise because of the airport’s operation and development’. Preventing
new housing being built close to the Airport can be a key contributor to this objective.
Taking account of the NPPF’s policy P1 (specifically part 1c) this constraint should be
recognised in the choice of sites selected by the Council for new housing or, where7
allocations close to the airport are deemed absolutely necessary, within the site - specific
requirements of allocations to avoid aircraft noise from giving rise to significant adverse
impacts on health and quality of life and to adequately mitigate and minimise adverse
impacts on health and quality of life . No site allocations for residential development should
be made within areas that are subject to aircraft noise levels at or above the Significant
Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL).
The location and characteristics of a development can have significant implications for
aviation safety. Therefore, when considering the type, scale and design of development on
allocated sites that fall within Manchester Airport’s safeguarded area, consideration of the
regulatory aerodrome safeguarding requirements, consultation procedures, and any
potential impacts on aircraft safety must be addressed in accordance with the NPPF’s policy
P1 (specifically part 1c) . Due regard must be given to the legislative provisions set out in the
Town and Country Planning (Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military
Explosives Storage Areas) Direction 2002 (ODPM Circular 1/2003) (or any subsequent
replacement). This is to ensure that the safe operation of aircraft and air traffic control
procedures is not compromised by development that causes, inter alia: an obstacle, an
increased bird strike risk, interference with radar or an ocular hazard through glint and glare
or lighting.
Employment and economy (5.65 - 5.69)
To align with the Government’s pro - growth policy, we would welcome a policy in the new
Local Plan that strengthens support for growing businesses and long - term economic
growth. Such policy would need to allow adequate flexibility to respond to changing
conditions and market demands. This would align with the new NPPF policy E1 (Providing
the conditions for long - term economic growth) which airports should be seen in the context
of. Due regard also needs to be made to NPPF policy TR1 (1)(e) that supports planning for
the needs of transport infrastructure , which specifically includes airports, to facilitate
economic growth .
As referred to earlier, Manchester Airport is a nationally significant infrastructure asset and
key driver of economic growth with a significant GVA contribution to Cheshire East . The
Airport is also a major employment area , with circa 20,400 people working in over 140 on -
site businesses , as well as supporting employment and economic activity in the wider
supply chain. As such, there is considerable potential for the Airport ’s growth to contribute
to the borough’s economic vision and strategy . The Local Plan should acknowledge this and
afford strong support for the Airport’s sustainable economic growth – it is currently absent
from the list of ‘major employers in paragraph 5.65 of the Scoping Report . The growth of
Manchester Airport with its connectivity to local and international markets will contribute to
the creation of more jobs, economic activity and supply chain opportunities that will serve to
enhance economic growth within Cheshire East.
Recent research on the impact of Manchester Airport development as a driver of economic
growth , 25 years on from the opening of Runway 2 , has been undertaken by Metro
Dynamics . Their report , “A Route to Growth for the North - 25 Years of Manchester Airport's
Second Runway Report (August 2026)’ (aroutetogrowthreportman2026.pdf ) provides a
succinct up - to- date summary of Manchester Airport’s contribution to wider economic
growth , evidencing how the Airport’s infrastructure investments and expansion have shaped
the regional economy . We would encourage reference to this within the Local Plan evidence
base.8
Establishing a pipeline of adaptable employment use land supply at the plan - making stage
is essential. These allocations should be informed by strategic evidence of the long - term
needs, which provides greater certainty for local communities, businesses and investors.
We welcome the preparation of the Economic Development Needs Assessment and
Employment Land Review , as stated in paragraph 5.69 of the Scoping Report . T he future of
Manchester Airport should be included within this Assessment and Review .
Transport and Infrastructure (5.91 - 5.95)
Sustainable transport connectivity
Ensuring that there is effective transport connectivity across Cheshire East and supporting
improvements to the public transport , active travel, and strategic transport network between
the borough and Manchester Airport should be a priority. Careful consideration of the public
transport links to Manchester Airport will be required. The Airport’s transport links are part
of a wider network that is important for the overall connectivity and economic
competitiveness of the region . Maintaining an effective, efficient and reliable transport
network is hugely important for the Airport’s further development as a major international
gateway. Promoting transport measures and supporting improved accessibility to the Airport
will therefore help to facilitate economic growth and development across Cheshire East.
Predictable and reliable accessibility and sustainable accessibility are key principles of the
Airport’s own surface access strategy as set out in the Manchester Airport SDP (both the
2016 adopted version and the soon to be launched consultation draft replacement) . We
recognise that in certain parts of the borough, residents cannot easily access Manchester
Airport by public transport as air passengers or for travelling to work, and this can be a
barrier to some residents from the area being able to access jobs and training opportunities .
This may also prevent Cheshire East residents in the areas close to the Airport utilising our
Ground Transport Interchange ( the Station ) to access local, regional and national transport
connections.
Proposals for the new east - west rail route between Manchester and Liverpool (Northern
Powerhouse Rail) announced by the Government in January 2026 , including the
development of a new station at Manchester Airport , would improve rail connectivity in the
north of the borough and planning positively for the new NPR station at Manchester Airport
should therefore be reflected in the new Local Plan . The Airport is also supportive of
improved and faster rail connections from Crewe to Manchester via Manchester Airport. As
well as public transport improvements to/from the Airport benefiting Cheshire East residents
who work/could work at the Airport , these improvements could also benefit Cheshire East
businesses, by attracting a workforce and customers from areas in the vicinity of the Airport
outside of Cheshire East to work in the borough .
Manchester Airport is forecast to increase its passenger numbers significantly over the
next 15 - 20 years. To support this level of activity, and the increased number of on - site jobs,
an efficient and integrated transport network is crucial . Our ambition is to deliver a
substantial shift in the proportion of passengers and staff using public transport to access
the airport. Our target is to achieve 40% of passengers and 40% of staff using sustainable
transport modes by the time the Airport is handling 50 million passengers per year, but with
a long - term stretch target and ambition to achieve of 50% of staff using sustainable9
transport. The achievement of these mode share targets will rely on a major shift in the
reliability of rail services and the development of the rail network, along with the
development of services and expansion of the wider public transport network , including
buses .
The Local Plan will be an important part of the broader transport strategy framework needed
to achieve this . It should be closely aligned with the Cheshire East Local Transport Plan
(2026) which identifies ‘Connecting with Manchester Airport’ as a key investment package
in the LTP Investment Framework focus sing on improving sustainable travel connections
with Manchester Airport .
Transport planning
We support the vision - led approach to planning for transport , as set out in paragraph 5.93
of the Scoping Report . Airports themselves are not just elements of physical infrastructure;
they function as significant multimodal transport hubs, major employment centres, catalysts
for regional productivity and are economic growth generators in their own right. Manchester
Airport must grow and develop in a sustainable and socially responsible way and planning
holistically is essential to achieve this. Sustainable transport solutions are a fundamental part
of this and must be considered at a very early stage of plan - making i n consultation with key
stakeholders .
We welcome the recognition in paragraph 5.93 of the Scoping Report of the need to make
effective use of existing infrastructure and to plan for new infrastructure where necessary.
NPPF policy TR1 requires the needs of transport infrastructure, including the adaptation and
expansion of airports, to be fully considered in development plan preparation. T he Local
Plan should reflect this requirement by recognising and embed ding the role of strategic
infrastructure , including Manchester Airport , in supporting sustainable growth and creating
well - connected places.
Policies relating to Manchester Airport
We strongly welcome your recognition within paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report of the
need to include policies relating to Manchester Airport within the new Local Plan.
Consideration of the Airport’s operational needs and environmental impact is essential . Parts
of Manchester Airport’s Operational A rea lie within Cheshire East , and policy is required to
ensure that the Airport’s operational safety, efficiency and future development are not
compromised. It will be important to achieve an appropriate balance between these factors
when formulating policy for the new Local Plan .
The Local Plan Strategy (2017) and Site Allocations and Development Policies Document
(2022) contain several existing policies and other information relating to Manchester Airport
that should form the basis of the emerging policy and detail within the new Local Plan . The
key matters are as follows:
• Supporting appropriate airport - related development – Part of Manchester Airport’s
current Operational Area lies within Cheshire East, and the Airport therefore seek s to
retain this designation in the new Local Plan . Policy must be included to reflect the
types of development and uses that are permitted within the Operational Area . The
current approach to development within the Airport’s Operational Area as set out in
SADPD Policy INF 4 and associated supporting text should be updated within the new10
Local Plan to reflect current and anticipated future circumstances . We welcome the
acknowledgement in paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report that this policy will be
needed.
Regarding Manchester Airport’s future development aspirations and land
requirements , as the Airport continues to grow in response to the economic
performance of both our region and the North, and as we plan for the future of the
terminals and airfield to respond to our airline and customer needs, we will need to
keep the extent of the Operational Area under review. Our primary focus will continue
to be to make best use of our existing facilities an d land, however, should it be
necessary, we will explore the case and opportunity for limited expansion of the
Operational Area (both within Cheshire East and outside the borough) based on an
evidence - led approach .
• Managing the impacts of aircraft noise – The effect of aircraft noise upon the
amenity of Cheshire East residents requires careful consideration in the planning
process and development should be limited in certain affected areas. We therefore
support the inclusion of current policy that controls development (residential and
other noise sensitive development) in areas adversely affected by aircraft noise.
SADPD Policy ENV 13 should therefore be carried over and updated within the new
Local Pl an to ensure technical accuracy and to reflect current best practice as well as
the Airport’s latest noise contours and statutory Noise Action Plan. This policy would
ensure that development proposals near the airport is limited to those which are
compatible with noise levels in the area and that development is capable of being
occupied without undue nuisance from aircraft noise. We welcome the
acknowledgement in paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report that this policy will be
needed.
• Ensuring that development does not compromise aviation safety through the
process of Aerodrome Safeguarding – Manchester Airport must be afforded policy
protection to ensure that its operational safety, efficiency and future development are
not compromised. This has implications for land and development within the borough
and presents specific development issues t hat cannot be addressed by generic
development management policies. SADPD Policy GEN 5 and associated supporting
text should be retained and updated within the new Local Plan. We welcome the
acknowledgement in paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report that this policy will be
needed.
Please note that Manchester Airport’s safeguarded area has been updated since the
adoption of the SADPD in 2022 and is now more extensive in its coverage due to the
requirement to incorporate the safeguarding of current and possible future
Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs). We are happy to discuss the implications of this
with you in more detail and would welcome the opportunity to work with you to draft
an appropriate policy and supporting text that reflects the most current aerodrome
safeguarding procedures, as the development of the new Local Plan progresses.
• Control of development within Airport Public Safety Zone s (PSZ) – PSZ’s are
designated areas of land at the end of runways at the UK’s major airports, within
which development is restricted to control the number of people on the ground at risk
of death or injury should an aircraft accident occur during take - off or landing. The
policy objective is to prevent an increase in the number of people living, working or11
congregating in these areas, and over time reducing this number as circumstances
allow. SADPD Policy GEN 6 should be carried forward and updated within the new
Local Plan. Reference to the need for this policy in the new Local Plan is absent from
paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report and should be corrected at the next stage of
plan - making.
• ‘Off - airport’ car parking – In recognition of the off - airport parking market (i.e.
parking for airport passengers not provided by the Airport itself) that is sustained in
parts of the borough, SADPD Policy INF 5 and associated supporting text should be
retained and updated within the new Local Plan. Reference to the need for this policy
in the new Local Plan is absent from paragraph 5.94 of the Scoping Report and
should be corrected at the next stage of plan - making.
As stated previously under Section 3, w e strongly welcome the recognition in paragraph
5.95 of the Scoping Report that the Manchester Airport Sustainable Development Plan (SDP)
will be used to inform preparation of the Local Plan. Our SDP contains detailed plans relating
to the Airport’s Strategic Context, Economy, Lan d Use, Surface Access , Environment and
Community. We also welcome the compilation of the Infrastructure Issues and Context
Report . Our response to this scoping consultation should be read alongside the information
that we previously submitted to support preparation of the Infrastructure Issues and Context
Report . We look forward to further collaborative working on the subsequent Infrastructure
Delivery Plan .
Natural Environment (5.96 - 5.103)
We note that paragraph 5.99 of the Scoping Report suggests the potential for biodiversity
net gain standards that exceed national minimum standards where they are justified and
deliverable. There is a potential conflict here between delivering biodiversity net gain (BNG)
near Manchester Airport and maintaining the safe operation of aircraft. Whilst a BNG target
above the mandatory requirement is admirable, we ask that careful consideration is made to
the potential implications of this from an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and the likely
feasibility of achieving this for developments given that a significant area of the borough is
within Manchester Airpo rt’s 13km bird hazard safeguarding zone.
Furthermore, the new NPPF Policy N1(2) states that “Development plans should only set
local standards for biodiversity net gain which are in excess of the statutory net gain
requirement where this is for specific site allocations, and is fully justified and deliverable.
Local standards should not extend to categories of development which are exempt from
statutory biodiversity net gain.” If the Council seeks to apply a higher BNG target to specific
allocations close to the Airport we would welcome an early dialogue on whether this is
practically achievable given the requirement for appropriate aerodrome safeguarding.
Pollution and contamination (5.109)
We welcome the acknowledgement in paragraph 5.109 of the aircraft noise impacts across
parts of Cheshire East. As previously stated under the ‘ transport and infrastructure ’ section ,
the effect of aircraft noise upon health and quality of life requires careful consideration in
the planning process and policy is required in the Local Plan to manage the impacts of
aircraft noise and control development (residential and other noise - sensitive development)
in areas adversely affected by aircraft noise.12
SADPD Policy ENV 13 should therefore be carried over and updated within the new Local
Plan to ensure technical accuracy and to reflect current best practice , the Airport’s latest
noise contours , and the statutory Noise Action Plan. This policy would ensure that
development is limited to those which are compatible with noise levels in the area and that
development is capable of being occupied without undue nuisance from aircraft noise.
Wider strategies (5.143)
Regarding the wider plans and strategies that will help to inform the new Local Plan as set
out at paragraph 5.143 of the Scoping Report, we strongly recommend that you also take
account of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority’s production of an Independent
Economic Review .
We note that the Green Belt Assessment referenced in paragraph 5.18 of the Scoping Report
is missing from the list of further evidence that is either in production or planned as set out
in paragraph 5.145 .
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this scoping consultation . We trust that our
comments have been useful but please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to
discuss the matters raised in more detail. We look forward to collaborating with you further
as the preparation of your new Local Plan progresses.
Yours sincerely

I am writing on behalf of my husband and I, [personal information redacted], to raise concerns regarding the proposed development and, in particular, whether the local area has the infrastructure and services required to support further significant population growth.
Pressure on local health and mental health services
I work locally within CAMHS and have first-hand experience of how stretched existing children's mental health services already are. I am therefore concerned about encouraging further residential expansion without sufficient consideration being given to the additional demand this will place on already over-stretched health, mental health and children's services.
It is important that the impact of additional residents on local NHS services, including CAMHS, is properly assessed. Increasing the population without ensuring that appropriate services, staffing and capacity are available risks placing further pressure on services that are already struggling to meet existing demand.
Insufficient school capacity
I am also particularly concerned about the availability of local primary school places. Whirley Primary School is already oversubscribed, and this is before the completion and full occupation of the existing Bellway development. There are already families within Greenside who have experienced difficulties securing primary school places locally.
The proposed development would inevitably result in further demand for school places. I question whether there is currently sufficient capacity within local schools to accommodate this growth, particularly when the existing developments have not yet reached their full occupancy.
I have a young child myself and we are hoping to have another child in the future. As a local family, it is concerning to consider whether our children will be able to secure places at a local primary school. This is not simply a theoretical concern; existing pressures on school places are already being experienced by families in the area.
Traffic and transport infrastructure
The existing road network also appears to be under significant pressure. Traffic travelling into town can already be heavy outside traditional peak periods, with the Broken Cross roundabout being a particular area of concern.
Further residential development will inevitably increase the number of vehicles using the local road network. I am concerned that the cumulative impact of existing and proposed developments has not been adequately addressed and that additional housing could exacerbate congestion, journey times and the overall accessibility of the area.
Loss of open countryside and impact on existing properties
A further significant concern is the loss of the open fields surrounding existing properties. We chose our home in part because of the fields and open countryside immediately behind our property. The proposed development would fundamentally change the character and outlook of the area.
The loss of this open aspect is likely to have an impact on the desirability and potentially the value of existing properties, as well as making them more difficult to sell. Residents who purchased their homes with the expectation of living adjacent to open countryside would experience a substantial and permanent change to their surroundings.
Agricultural land and food production
The fields proposed for development also have an important agricultural function. In particular, the field behind our property provides food for cattle in the surrounding fields.
At a time when climate change, changing weather patterns and pressures on food production are increasingly important considerations, I am concerned that the cumulative loss of productive agricultural land is not being given sufficient weight.
Once agricultural land is developed, its productive capacity is permanently lost. Consideration should therefore be given not only to the immediate consequences of this development, but to the cumulative loss of agricultural land across the local area and the implications this may have for local farming and food security.
Biodiversity and the loss of greenspace
The existing greenspace also provides an important habitat for local wildlife. We regularly see a wide range of wildlife around the fields, including birds, rabbits and mice, as well as other species that rely upon the existing grassland and hedgerows.
Development would inevitably result in the loss and fragmentation of these habitats. While ecological mitigation may be proposed, replacing an established natural environment with newly created or landscaped areas cannot necessarily replicate the ecological value of the existing habitat.
The loss of greenspace should also be considered in the context of climate change. Open land, vegetation, soil and established habitats all contribute to the resilience of the local environment. Further development and the associated loss of natural land should therefore be carefully considered against the long-term environmental consequences.
Cumulative impact
Ultimately, my concern is not simply about one additional development in isolation. There has already been substantial residential growth in the area, and existing infrastructure is showing signs of pressure.
Before further expansion is approved, I believe there needs to be clear evidence that adequate school places, NHS services, roads and transport infrastructure, drainage, green infrastructure and ecological mitigation are available to support the cumulative increase in population.
Housing development should not take place ahead of the infrastructure required to make that growth sustainable. I therefore ask that the cumulative impact of this proposal, alongside existing and already-approved developments in the area, is fully assessed before planning permission is granted.

This letter has been prepared by Heatons on behalf of Tarmac Trading Limited as a
response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation. The response is intended to assist the Council in considering the scope of the new plan, particularly in relation to employment land, the effective use of previously developed land, Green Belt review and the role of existing employment locations across the borough. Accordingly, this response has been structured to respond to the relevant matters in chronological order.
Paragraphs 5.5 to 5.7: Planning for Growth
The consultation correctly identifies that the new Local Plan will need to plan positively for housing, employment, retail and other uses required to support sustainable growth across Cheshire East.
In planning for future growth, it will be important that Cheshire East provides sufficient employment land to support economic prosperity, investment and job creation alongside housing delivery. Failure to provide an adequate supply of employment land risks constraining economic growth and increasing out-commuting from the borough.
As part of this process, the Council should ensure that the evidence base and spatial strategy provide a sufficiently flexible and deliverable supply of employment land. This should include consideration of a range of site typologies, including modern strategic
sites, smaller local employment opportunities and existing employment locations capable
of being reused, intensified or modernised where appropriate.
Paragraphs 5.8 to 5.12: Identifying and Assessing Sites
Tarmac strongly encourages the Council to place significant weight upon the identification and allocation of previously developed land through the land availability assessment process. National planning policy is clear that brownfield land should be prioritised as part of a sustainable pattern of development and that underutilised sites should be brought back into effective use wherever opportunities exist.
The Council's site assessment methodology should be prepared in accordance with Policy PM9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (August 2026), which requires the assessment of site suitability, availability, achievability, development capacity and
delivery timescales. In applying this methodology, the Council should ensure that positive weight is afforded to sites that comprise previously developed land, benefit from existing infrastructure and access arrangements, are available within the early stages of the plan period and are capable of contributing towards identified employment needs.
Furthermore, Policy L1 of the NPPF requires development plans to identify ways of accommodating as much as possible of development needs on previously developed
land, including through the reuse and intensification of underutilised business sites. On that basis, the land availability assessment should recognise the contribution that previously developed and underutilised employment land can make to meeting future needs. Sites with an established industrial character, existing buildings or hardstanding,and available infrastructure may provide opportunities to accommodate employment growth while reducing pressure on wholly greenfield locations.
The allocation of brownfield employment sites such as this delivers a range of planning benefits. It reduces pressure on greenfield land, promotes efficient use of existing infrastructure, supports sustainable patterns of development and assists in meeting economic development objectives without requiring the significant land take associated with entirely new employment locations.
Furthermore, redevelopment would provide an opportunity to rationalise the existing site layout, modernise the built form, improve operational efficiency and deliver environmental enhancements. For example, where a site currently contains ageing industrial infrastructure and substantial areas of hardstanding, an allocation would likely lead to redevelopment that would achieve biodiversity enhancements, improved landscaping,better integration with surrounding woodland and a significantly enhanced appearance when compared with the existing condition. While the Council may assume that sites of this nature would come forward through policy compliance alone, that is unlikely to be the case for previously developed land. Allocating existing employment sites that could be expanded to create additional floorspace would provide operators with greater confidence and help unlock investment. Therefore, the value of allocating sites with an employment legacy and the capacity to provide additional floorspace should not be underestimated.
The assessment process should therefore distinguish between different forms of Green Belt land. Previously developed sites, established employment locations and heavily enclosed or visually contained sites have a different planning profile from open, undeveloped countryside. A consistent methodology for recognising these distinctions, alongside a Grey Belt assessment, would assist in identifying appropriate options for the plan.
The Council's site assessment methodology should be prepared in accordance with Policy PM9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (August 2026), which requires the assessment of site suitability, availability, achievability, development capacity and
delivery timescales. In applying this methodology, the Council should ensure that positive weight is afforded to sites that comprise previously developed land, benefit from existing infrastructure and access arrangements, are available within the early stages of the plan period and are capable of contributing towards identified employment needs.
Furthermore, Policy L1 of the NPPF requires development plans to identify ways of accommodating as much as possible of development needs on previously developed
land, including through the reuse and intensification of underutilised business sites. On that basis, the land availability assessment should recognise the contribution that previously developed and underutilised employment land can make to meeting future needs. Sites with an established industrial character, existing buildings or hardstanding,and available infrastructure may provide opportunities to accommodate employment growth while reducing pressure on wholly greenfield locations.
The allocation of brownfield employment sites such as this delivers a range of planning benefits. It reduces pressure on greenfield land, promotes efficient use of existing infrastructure, supports sustainable patterns of development and assists in meeting economic development objectives without requiring the significant land take associated with entirely new employment locations.
Furthermore, redevelopment would provide an opportunity to rationalise the existing site layout, modernise the built form, improve operational efficiency and deliver environmental enhancements. For example, where a site currently contains ageing industrial infrastructure and substantial areas of hardstanding, an allocation would likely lead to redevelopment that would achieve biodiversity enhancements, improved landscaping,better integration with surrounding woodland and a significantly enhanced appearance when compared with the existing condition. While the Council may assume that sites of this nature would come forward through policy compliance alone, that is unlikely to be the case for previously developed land. Allocating existing employment sites that could be expanded to create additional floorspace would provide operators with greater confidence and help unlock investment. Therefore, the value of allocating sites with an employment legacy and the capacity to provide additional floorspace should not be underestimated.
The assessment process should therefore distinguish between different forms of Green Belt land. Previously developed sites, established employment locations and heavily enclosed or visually contained sites have a different planning profile from open, undeveloped countryside. A consistent methodology for recognising these distinctions, alongside a Grey Belt assessment, would assist in identifying appropriate options for the plan.
The spatial strategy should seek to balance economic growth across the borough and should not rely solely upon large urban extensions. Existing brownfield employment sites provide valuable opportunities to support economic development in sustainable locations whilst minimising impacts upon undeveloped countryside.
A balanced spatial strategy should therefore include a clear route for assessing existing employment sites outside the principal towns and key service centres. This would help ensure that smaller-scale and local employment opportunities are not overlooked where they are well related to the highway network, have an established commercial or industrial function, and offer scope for environmental improvement.
Paragraphs 5.27 to 5.29: Development in Settlements and Countryside
Tarmac notes the Council's intention to consider the need for additional local policies regarding development both within settlements and in the countryside.
Future countryside policies should distinguish between undeveloped rural land and sites that already contain substantial built development or long-established employment uses.
This distinction is important because redevelopment or intensification of an existing employment site may raise materially different planning considerations from development on open countryside.
The Local Plan should therefore provide flexibility to enable sustainable redevelopment and expansion of existing employment sites where environmental and accessibility considerations can be appropriately addressed.
Paragraphs 5.65 to 5.69: Employment and Economy
Policy E1 of the NPPF requires development plans to establish a positive economic strategy, allocate sites to meet identified employment needs and facilitate the expansion and modernisation of businesses. The Council's evidence base should therefore identify not only new employment opportunities but also existing employment sites capable of regeneration, intensification and modernisation. National policy also recognises the importance of supporting economic growth within rural areas. Policy E1 applies equally to sustainable economic growth in both urban and rural locations, while Policy E4
specifically supports the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas and directs decision-makers towards opportunities that utilise previously developed land and sites physically well related to existing development.
The employment and economy section should therefore ensure that the new Local Plan is informed by a robust understanding of the quantity, quality, location and deliverability of employment land required over the plan period. This should include consideration of both strategic employment provision and smaller or specialist sites that support local supply chains, rural businesses and existing employment clusters.
The Council should place particular emphasis on the role that previously developed and underutilised employment sites can play in meeting future employment requirements. The redevelopment of brownfield land represents one of the most sustainable forms of economic growth, enabling employment needs to be accommodated whilst minimising pressure on greenfield land and reducing the need for wholly new employment locations.
Such an approach aligns with national planning policy objectives relating to the effective use of land, regeneration and sustainable development.
Within that assessment, previously developed employment sites should be treated as an important component of the potential land supply. Some such sites may contain older buildings, hardstanding or legacy industrial infrastructure, yet still offer opportunities for modernisation, environmental enhancement and more efficient use of land. Their role should be considered alongside, rather than after, wholly new employment allocations.
Redeveloping sites that are well positioned to contribute towards future economic needs,benefit from direct access to the A-road network and have strong connectivity to key towns such as Macclesfield and Congleton, as well as to the wider strategic road network,
should be prioritised. Redevelopment of such sites would provide the opportunity to modernise and intensify the use of underutilised brownfield land, delivering new employment floorspace, supporting business investment and creating jobs in a highly sustainable location.
The Council should also recognise that employment needs are not limited to large urban
or strategic locations. Existing employment sites in rural or edge-of-settlement locations can perform a complementary role by supporting local jobs, reducing the need for longer commuting trips and allowing established uses to adapt to changing business requirements. Where such sites are accessible, deliverable and capable of accommodating environmental improvements, they should be assessed positively
through the plan-making process.
Paragraphs 5.91 to 5.95: Transport and Infrastructure
Policy TR1 of the NPPF requires development plans to locate growth where it can make effective use of existing transport infrastructure and support sustainable movement patterns. Similarly, Policy TR3 requires development to utilise existing transport infrastructure and optimise the amount of development that can be accommodated in accessible locations.
Tarmac Trading Limited therefore supports the Council's intention to ensure that future development is supported by appropriate transport and infrastructure provision. An effective transport network is essential to supporting sustainable economic growth, maintaining business competitiveness and ensuring that development is delivered in suitable and accessible locations.
The emerging Local Plan should recognise the significant benefits associated with directing development towards sites that already benefit from established infrastructure and access arrangements. Redevelopment of such sites reduces the need for extensive new infrastructure provision, limits the environmental impacts associated with greenfield development and enables growth to be delivered more efficiently and sustainably.
The transport and infrastructure evidence should give appropriate weight to sites that can make use of established access arrangements and existing infrastructure. This can reduce delivery risk, avoid unnecessary infrastructure duplication and support the efficient reuse of land already associated with employment or industrial activity.
A plan-led approach should therefore assess the ability of existing employment sites to operate safely and efficiently, including access, servicing, traffic generation, connectivity to labour markets and opportunities for mitigation or improvement. Sites that perform well against these criteria may provide a sustainable and deliverable source of future employment land.
As such, by implementing the approach set out in the consultation, it is clear that the redevelopment of underutilised brownfield employment sites served by existing highway infrastructure represents one of the most efficient forms of development available to the Council. This approach aligns not only with NPPF Policies TR1 and TR3 but also with Policy L1, which seeks to maximise the contribution that previously developed land can make towards meeting development needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Tarmac Trading Limited supports the preparation of a new Local Plan which positively plans for sustainable growth, economic investment and the effective use of land across Cheshire East. The new Local Plan should be underpinned by a robust and flexible evidence base which recognises the contribution that existing employment locations,previously developed land and underutilised brownfield sites can make towards meeting future employment needs.
Particular weight should be given to sites which benefit from an established employment
or industrial character, existing infrastructure and access arrangements, and the ability to deliver modernised floorspace alongside environmental enhancements. Such sites can support business investment, job creation and local economic resilience while reducing pressure on wholly greenfield locations.
The Council should therefore ensure that its site assessment, Green Belt and Grey Belt review, settlement hierarchy, spatial distribution and employment evidence base all provide a clear and positive route for considering the redevelopment, intensification and modernisation of existing employment sites where they are suitable, available, achievable and deliverable.
Tarmac respectfully requests that these matters are taken into account as the new Local Plan progresses, and that appropriate policy wording and site assessment criteria are developed to support the effective reuse of brownfield employment land, sustainable rural economic growth and the delivery of a balanced employment land supply over the plan period.

Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation: A Submission from Peckforton Parish
A One-Page Overview of Key Issues Followed by Five Pages of Specific Comments
1. Our submission concentrates solely on one aspect of the proposed “new local plan”, namely “the
amount and locations of new housing and employment development”.
2. The government’s new method of calculating local housing need has seen the requirement jump
from 977 new homes to be built per year, to 2,530, i.e. 37,950 dwellings over the 15 years of the next
local plan, 2030-2045. We fully recognise the considerable pressures such a dramatic increase
imposes on Cheshire East, its planners and the local community. That also argues for strategic
prioritisation and focus of resources on to the sites capable of making the most immediate,
straightforward and least contentious contribution to the new housing requirement.
3. A number of methodologies are currently under development, including those for determining site
allocation, land availability assessment, spatial distribution, settlement hierarchy review and
sustainability appraisal. A timeline for their completion should be produced. Furthermore,
Cheshire East has confirmed that all sites submitted will be subject to detailed assessment using
chosen criteria before any decisions are made. Individual communities should be invited to
comment on these criteria. They need to be properly defined before assessment begins.
4. Thorough consideration needs to be given to the adequacy of local infrastructure. Many areas of
the borough, and particularly across the countryside, are incapable of sustaining new development.
5. A 4-tier settlement hierarchy is already in place and although not a national policy requirement, it
seems a most sensible approach, capable of making a strong contribution to prioritisation, location
of sites for development, densification and infilling. Within each tier there is a case for further
stratification so, for example, in the fourth tier, “Other settlements and rural areas”, varying degrees
of weighting should be given to site development reflecting unique character and distinctiveness of
different types of countryside. Should an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (National Landscape)
be designated or an area be considered for it during the development of the local plan, this should
automatically be granted the highest level of protection, and so should conservation areas and sites
of special scientific interest.
6. It is encouraging that Cheshire East’s scoping consultation emphasises the importance of
protecting the natural environment, heritage assets and biodiversity. This should be meaningfully
incorporated within the proposed forward vision for 2030-45, be a formal strategic priority and
become one of the ten defined outcomes for tracking and ongoing measurement.
7. While Cheshire East is clearly under considerable pressure to build a substantial number of
houses, that should not mean that previous legislation, planning policies, guiding principles and
established precedents going back decades are ignored. Spatial strategy examinations and site
assessments from previous submissions are readily available and provide a valuable reference
point on sites deemed unsuitable for development. Equally, detailed and objective appraisals
completed in the past have similarly examined and defined the unique character and local
distinctiveness guiding site allocations. The Peckforton Plan 2007 is an excellent example.
8. Active community participation and ready access of local knowledge will clearly play an important
role in informing future stages of the local plan. We recommend that stronger engagement
principles, together with a detailed timetable of key deadlines, are systematised and published.
This submission was made by letter to Cheshire East Council (Strategic Planning Team), Delamere
House, Delamere Street, Crewe, CW1 2LL on 24th August and also online through 23 comment boxes on
25th August 2026.
Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation
Submission of Specific Comments from Peckforton Parish, 24th August 2026
The Chair of Peckforton Parish Meeting, Neil Dyer, circulated details and a link to Cheshire East’s
scoping and consultation for the new local plan to all residents during August 2026. Jon Hughes, of
Quarry Bank, Peckforton, drew together initial submissions for the scope, particularly concentrating on
ensuring that it respects and protects Open Countryside, the character and heritage of Peckforton,
Green Belt, Conservation Areas and the Natural Environment.
Three source documents were specifically referred to for our submission: Cheshire East Local plan
scoping consultation online site (with consultation running from 21st July to 1st September 2026), the
agenda from the Cheshire East Town and Parish Council Network meeting 11th August 2026 and the
circulated Minutes.
In addition, past planning policies, guiding principles and established precedents have been drawn on,
with particular reference to Peckforton Plan 2007, Conservation Area Character Appraisal and
Management Strategy.
With the short notice for consultation, it was not possible to discuss the full content of the submission
with residents, but that is scheduled for the next parish meeting on 1st September 2026.
1. Scoping consultation introduction
1.1 “Peckforton residents recognise that the scoping consultation is only the first formal stage of
engagement. Unfortunately the timescale was inadequate, and its schedule during school summer
holidays meant that it was difficult to obtain the views of residents on critically important vision and
strategic priorities for Cheshire East. Could there please be clearer timescales and lengthier time
allocated for consultation and input throughout the full process from 2026-2029.”
2. New local plan
2.1 “The increase in housing requirement to 2,530 houses to be built per year is startling. How will
appropriate balance be secured between top-down national planning frameworks / pressures to
build versus proper protection and improvement of heritage assets, conservation areas, open
countryside and the historic environment?”
2.6 Developing the new local plan. “The next consultation is scheduled for Summer 2027,
including details of the proposed spatial strategy of where development will happen, which is likely
to be contentious. This consultation needs to be over a considerably longer time period than that of
the scoping consultation exercise, with more precision on key dates and timelines. Indeed, at the
moment it is generally unclear precisely when Gateway Reviews will take place, as well as
associated consultation and local engagement at each stage.
3. Context for the new local plan
3.3 Increase in housing requirements. “Peckforton residents are very concerned that National
Planning Policy placing significant weight on the need to boost housing supply, allied with the
challenge of locating deliverable housing sites across Cheshire East, will lead to inappropriate
approvals for building in locations that would not normally have been allowed in the past, such as
the countryside and Green Belt. Similarly, that planning applications may be approved, even if not
in line with local wishes. Much greater transparency and specificity are required as to the criteria
that might be applied in guiding such decisions. When will that be available, and in what detail?”
3.11 Changes to Green Belt policy. “Location and assessment of the new category of grey belt
land may well provide a significant number of sites for development. How will grey belt be defined
and by when will that process have been achieved?”
3.15 Brown field development. “This has to be a key focus. What percentage of the 2,530 houses
per year is expected to be built on such sites? There is clearly a hierarchy of targeted development,
with brown field and grey belt sites sitting at the top. Will they receive priority?”
3.17 Spatial development strategy. “This section confirms that Cheshire East is now part of the
Cheshire & Warrington Combined Local Authority. At the moment there is no Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (National Landscape) status in Cheshire (although one is currently under active
consideration for the Sandstone Ridge and area surrounding it). That is a glaring omission bearing
in mind the highly distinctive natural landscape of the Cheshire Sandstone Ridge, incorporating the
Peckforton Hills. Will securing AONB status become a strategic priority in view of its tourism,
wellbeing and amenity value?”
4. Baseline information and spatial portrait
4.1 “Cheshire East is a large borough, home to 421,300 residents, with a diverse range of
settlements and distinctive landscapes. Parts are deeply rural, with dispersed development, and
should be kept that way. These provide a most important contrast to more developed and
urbanised environments. What strategic framework will be adopted throughout local plan
development to differentiate properly and reflect local priorities and requirements?”
4.11 Heritage, culture and natural environment. “It is a very important strategic priority to protect
and sustain this environment, not least because Cheshire East is fortunate that one sixth of the
population live in rural areas, 40,140 hectares of land are designated as Green Belt, farmed land is
70.3% of the borough’s land, there are 78 conservation areas, nearly 3,000 listed buildings and
numerous areas designated for their landscape and wildlife value. Peckforton residents, in line
with other rural parishes, wish there to be an explicit assurance that this priority will be fully
respected. It is a counterbalance to urban development and densification elsewhere.
“How will the preservation and expansion of leisure and tourism for borough residents and visitors
be incorporated within the local plan? As an illustration, Peckforton contains a Grade 1 Listed
Castle and an English Heritage-listed Elephant & Castle statue, is an access point for the
Sandstone Trail, home of the Wesley and Ancient Oak Trees and has many beautiful footpaths
cutting across the parish, over the Peckforton Hills, around meres and protected wetlands.
Numerous activities take place throughout the village and its neighbouring countryside: trail
running, orienteering, cycling, car rallies, riding, footpath walking and simply savouring the heritage
of the landscape. Inappropriate development will erode these leisure assets.”
4.17 Settlements and rural-urban composition. “The borough consists of several towns of
varying sizes, along with an extensive rural area covering many villages and smaller settlements.
There needs to be a strategic emphasis within the new local plan that maintains the importance of
that balance.”
5. Scope of the new local plan
5.2 Creating a vision and objectives. “A determination to frame a short vision statement for
Cheshire East, accompanied by up to ten measurable outcomes, is welcomed. There needs to be
proactive consultation on this to ensure that the rural perspective and maintenance of heritage
assets is properly incorporated. As an example, securing inclusion of an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (National Landscape) as a strategic asset for the whole county should be included.”
5.5 Planning for growth. “Economic growth for Cheshire East is vital but it must be sustainable
while properly protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment. How will that
balance be secured within the local plan?”
5.8 Identifying and assessing sites. “There have been two recent calls, in 2024 and 2026, for
housing sites. On neither occasion were Peckforton parish officials or residents informed.
Precisely how will sites be identified and assessed from now onwards, how will timely consultation
be achieved and when will the land availability assessment methodology (under preparation) be
available for scrutiny? What input will be sought on its refinement and application?”
5.15 Green Belt. “While the 400 sq. kms. of Green Belt need to be appropriately protected, we
welcome the Borough-wide Green Belt assessment exercise being undertaken to identify Grey Belt
land. When will that be completed? We endorse the approach whereby sites outside the Green
Belt are considered first for development, with maximization of brown field, Grey Belt and under
used land wherever possible.”
5.20 Settlement hierarchy. “While there is no requirement in national planning policy to set a
hierarchy of settlements, it is a very sensible approach that Cheshire East has adopted to set a 4
tier settlement hierarchy with a strategy for development at each tier: principal towns, key service
centres, local service centres, other settlements and rural areas. We would emphasise that within
the lowest tier there are numerous differences and accordingly recommend further classifications
to reflect the significant difference between, say, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (National
Landscape), rural conservation areas, open countryside, farm land and potential targets for infill
villages, appropriate limited infilling within a defined village boundary and edge-of-settlement
growth.”
5.24 Spatial distribution. “The spatial strategy approach appears sound, but how will appropriate
weightings for a wide range of factors be established? Will they be published and open for
consultation and feedback? In Peckforton, we have a particular interest in the factors to do with
‘landscape character, nature and ecology issues, heritage matters, agricultural land quality, open
spaces and other green infrastructure, Green Belt and strategic green gap designations’, as well as
management of conservation areas.”
5.27 Development in settlements. “How and by when will local policies be developed to pinpoint
where ‘the benefits of development are substantially outweighed by any adverse factors’. More
specifically, what are these adverse factors?”
5.29 Development in the countryside. “What is the status of previous local policies such as the
Peckforton Plan 2007, Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Strategy? We
strongly advocate their development, updating and application in building site selection.”
5.96 Natural environment. “We strongly endorse the statements that: ‘The natural environment is
a highly valued asset in Cheshire East and the new Local Plan will play an important role in
protecting and enhancing it for current and future generations’. Furthermore, consultation on the
Local Plan Issues Paper 2024 highlighted strong public interest in protecting and enhancing
biodiversity and valued landscapes. How will that be further defined and mapped across the
borough and precisely how will it inform site selection decision-making processes and criteria?”
5.125 Heritage. “Cheshire East is fortunate to be a rich and diverse historic environment with a
plethora of heritage and non-designated assets now identified through the council’s Local List and
the recently adopted Heritage and Local List SPD. We fully endorse the statement that: ‘The new
Local Plan will need to balance the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment with
the delivery of housing, employment and infrastructure.’ What processes and methodologies will
be deployed to best achieve that balance?”
5.128 Conservation areas. “While initially encouraged by the scoping document assertion that
‘conservation areas are recognised as important elements of local identity and character’ and that
‘national policy continues to give strong protection to conservation areas and requires their
significance to be considered in decision-making’, residents of Peckforton, as one of the 78
designated areas, have three major concerns:
i)
The need for holistic assessment: Cheshire East has indicated that the adequacy of existing
conservation appraisals and management plans may be reviewed. We argue that they should be
reviewed and not discounted when assessing site applications within a conservation area, its
surrounding open countryside, any Sites of Special Scientific Interest and both designated and non
designated Heritage assets. Such a holistic assessment is integral to full and proper understanding
of the character and integrity of the conservation area and whether any development should be
approved. That can only be done on a case-by-case basis.
ii)
Fully respecting previous policies, principles, plans and precedents: Peckforton was
designated a Conservation Area in September 1973. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 required that special attention had to be paid to the desirability
of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of such a conservation area. The
guidance contained in paragraph 4-14 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the
Historic Environment 1994 reasserted this as a material consideration to be taken into account in
handling development proposals outside a conservation area but which could negatively affect its
setting or views into or outside of the area. Furthermore, the Peckforton Plan 2007, Conservation
Area Character Appraisal and Management Study, produced an extensive, detailed, factual and
objective appraisal of Peckforton and how its special architectural, historic character and
appearance is preserved and enhanced.
While Cheshire East may be under considerable pressure to build houses, it should not mean that
previous legislation, policy, planning principles and precedents developed over decades should be
ignored. Peckforton residents feel particularly strongly that the well-defined and distinctive
characteristics that make their village a conservation area, together with the Peckforton Hills
(currently under strong consideration to be part of an AONB / Natural Landscape) and surrounding
open countryside must be properly protected and not traded off for property development. Also,
areas of tree cover and ancient oaks were protected by Area of Special County Value for Landscape
status.
iii) Mitigating inflexible, arbitrary and highly contentious policy: in response to a question
raised by the Peckforton Parish Chair at the network meeting on 11th August about strategic
prioritisation and resource allocation, we were most disappointed inter alia to receive the response
that ‘under government requirements the local plan must identify at least 10% of the overall housing
needs on small sites (less than 1 ha) and a further 10% on medium sites (between 1 ha and 2.5 ha).
As a result, despite the considerable pressure on planning department resources, the council must
continue to consider both small and large sites through both the planning application and local
plan processes. Assessment of suitability of sites will include looking at Conservation Areas, Green
Belt locations, other heritage assets and AONBs (if any exist!).’ We argue that this policy, and
specifically the nationally imposed 10% targets, should be flexibly interpreted and fully take into
account the holistic features that make each conservation area distinctive.
As indicated above, we are aware that under the new local plan submissions may be allowed for
sites in conservation areas and that Cheshire East will assess sites in line with government
guidance. We wish to request further details of this and sight of such guidance.
Finally, we welcome Cheshire East’s encouragement for us to contribute local knowledge and
evidence capable of playing an important role in informing future stages of the plan and we wish to
confirm our readiness to do so. This is particularly important in assessing site submissions within
conservation and surrounding areas. To do this we must be fully informed of critical timelines and
have dates for consultation clearly diarised.
5.145 New evidence: “A body of further evidence and methodologies is under development, for
example determining site allocation, heritage assessment, land availability assessment, settlement
hierarchy review, spatial distribution of development report and sustainability appraisal. When will
the timeline for their completion and application be available? Will they be available to access
through the new planning portal?”
6. Proposed local plan engagement strategy
6.60 Stakeholders. “While we welcome the proposals throughout section 6, such as ‘clear
engagement principles’, active ‘community involvement’ and clear ‘governance of the process’, we
have felt inadequately informed and engaged. Peckforton parish, with its residents and community
as a prime stakeholder, has been disappointed by the initial consultation process on the Local Plan.
The parish did not receive full information even though it was available, nor were we included in or
informed of the 2024 and 2026 calls for site submissions. Therefore we welcome a Local Plan
Engagement Strategy containing real clarity on who will be engaged, when that engagement will
occur throughout the plan-making process and precisely how consultation and participation
activities will be delivered, together with the macro timeline covering the full process from 2026 to
2029.”

Please find attached our submission to the Scoping Consultation for the Cheshire East new Local Plan. The representations respond to a number of key topics within the New Local Plan. They also introduce a Site to be submitted for consideration at Land at Booth Lane, Sandach, which is shown at Annex 1. These representations are submitted on behalf of the landowners.