Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for CPRE Cheshire search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
6 Proposed local plan engagement strategy
Representation ID: 4824
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
The respondent argues that Cheshire East Council is not meeting national expectations for community engagement during the Local Plan process. They note that MHCLG guidance requires a clear and regularly updated Project Initiation Document setting out stakeholder engagement arrangements, but state that no such document can be found on the Council’s website. Concerns are also raised that the Council’s Customer Experience Strategy is outdated and not specific to the Local Plan, while the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement no longer reflects the current plan-making process. The respondent recommends updating consultation arrangements, including revising the list of statutory consultees to include Active Travel England.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
5 Scope of the new local plan
Representation ID: 4825
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
The respondent highlights key statutory requirements for the emerging Local Plan under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026. They note that the Plan must contain a locally specific vision, no more than ten measurable outcomes, and the date of adoption. Reference is also made to new mandatory Local Plan data standards introduced in May 2026, intended to improve transparency by enabling communities and stakeholders to track plan preparation and housing provision. The respondent further notes that, while Sustainability Appraisals are no longer required, Strategic Environmental Assessments remain mandatory and should form part of the plan-making process.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
6 Proposed local plan engagement strategy
Representation ID: 4826
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
CPRE argues that Cheshire East Council appears to lack a current community engagement strategy for the Local Plan process and urges this to be addressed. However, it commends the Council’s establishment of a Community Assembly through the “Community Voices” initiative, which invited residents to participate in discussions on council priorities, including the emerging Local Plan. CPRE notes that the first event, held in Congleton in August 2026, was well attended, well facilitated and provided an opportunity for public feedback on planning issues. It also highlights that individuals and organisations making reasoned representations should continue to have opportunities to participate at the Local Plan examination stage.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Planning for growth
Representation ID: 4827
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide. CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 4828
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
CPRE argues that Cheshire East should prioritise urban regeneration and higher-density development on previously developed land to minimise pressure on the countryside and agricultural land. It recommends updating the Brownfield Register, encouraging redevelopment of suitable sites, preparing masterplans for principal and key service centres, reviewing commercial and industrial sites for housing potential, assessing undeveloped allocations in Neighbourhood Plans, and reassessing safeguarded land in the current Local Plan. Particular concern is raised about development affecting Danes Moss near Macclesfield. CPRE believes these measures could reduce reliance on speculative Call for Sites submissions and better protect landscapes, countryside access, and wildlife sites.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 4829
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
The respondent notes that an interactive map of submitted development sites has only recently been made available and lacks supporting analysis or commentary. They express concern that many proposed sites appear to have been promoted without sufficient regard to Green Belt and Green Gap constraints. The representation argues that, before the Local Plan progresses further, Cheshire East Council should publish and consult on a professional assessment of all submitted sites, including clear justification where Green Belt release is being considered. It also seeks greater transparency regarding site evaluations and options for accommodating development needs, arguing that the Green Belt should primarily be viewed as an opportunity for environmental enhancement.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 4830
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
CPRE expresses significant concern about the scale and location of proposed development sites submitted through the Local Plan process, particularly major mixed-use and housing schemes in the Green Belt around Knutsford, Mobberley, Ashley, Poynton, Adlington and Prestbury. It notes that many affected areas were previously assessed as making a significant contribution to Green Belt purposes. CPRE strongly opposes proposals that could weaken settlement separation, particularly around Poynton and Adlington, and raises concerns about cumulative development pressures across the borough. It calls for strong Green Belt protection, enhanced local landscape designations, and greater emphasis on environmental and social objectives alongside economic growth.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Representation ID: 4831
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed. We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Health and wellbeing
Representation ID: 4832
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Natural environment
Representation ID: 4833
Received: 24/08/2026
Respondent: CPRE Cheshire
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is celebrating its centenary this year. The organisation
(originally named the Council for the Preservation of Rural England) was established to tackle creeping
development into the countryside and poor design. We continue to work to those ends.
CPRE Cheshire Branch welcomes the opportunity to participate in the new Cheshire East Local Plan fast
track process, although we earnestly hope that the speeded-up process does not result in any diminution
in the roles that external stakeholders can play or in their views not receiving due consideration.
According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), the scoping
consultation stage is about ‘inviting feedback from stakeholders on how to engage with them and what
the plan should contain”. This being the case, we will tackle these two aspects separately.
Requirements for engaging with stakeholders – not currently being met by Cheshire East Council
Local planning authorities are required by the MHCLG to have “a well-defined community engagement
strategy” set out in their Project Initiation Document (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/engaging-the
public-when-preparing-a-local-plan#community-engagement-principles). This is to be a regularly
updated ‘living document’. We would point out that entering ‘Project Initiation Document’ into the
search engine of Cheshire East Council’s website yields no results. There is a generalized, outdated,
‘Customer Experience Strategy’, dated 2021-2024, but, in any event, it was not directed at the Local Plan.
Also, the 2022 Statement of Community Involvement is out of date, referring to the Local Plan Strategy,
the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document and the Minerals and Waste Plan as three
separate documents when in fact they will all be one with the new Plan process. And, Active Travel
England needs to be added to statutory consultees and Local Enterprise Partnerships removed.
Requirements regarding what the Local Plan should contain
The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulation 2026 requires Local Plans to have:
(a) A vision for the future of the local authority’s area. This must relate to the particular
characteristics or circumstances of the local planning authority’s area and it may contain the
authority’s aims and objectives showing how they intend to achieve their vision
(b) No more than 10 measurable outcomes and
(c) The date on which the plan is adopted or approved
The Chief Planner’s newsletter of June 4th, 2026 references the mandatory data standards for Local Plans
that came into force on May 7t, 2026 whereby “communities, developers and planners will be able to see
clearly, in one place, how plan making is progressing and how many homes each area is planning for”. It
records that whilst sustainability appraisals are no longer required Strategic Environmental Assessments
are (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-guidance-letters-to-chief-planning-officers#section).
Engaging with stakeholders – CPRE’s view
It would appear that Cheshire East Council does not have a current community engagement strategy (see
previous page). If that is in fact the case, then this situation must be rectified without delay.
That said, there is a community initiative for which CEC must be commended – the establishment of a
Community Assembly. A general invitation was issued via CEC’s website on June 24th for residents aged
over 18 to put themselves forward to join a ‘Community Voices’ panel. This, it was explained, would
allow members of the public to share their views and take part in open and constructive discussions that
would “help shape council services, priorities and decisions”. There was an on-line initial survey but the
first participative event was a meeting held at Congleton Town Hall on August 18th, attended by over 30
members of the public, who were invited to discuss the forthcoming Local Plan. Badged as a first
meeting of the Community Assembly, it allowed Cheshire East the opportunity to acquaint members of
the wider public with land use planning and for CEC to receive their initial feedback. The event was well
staffed and well facilitated and feedback was logged. It remains to be seen if it will have any impact on
decisions made.
As far as CPRE has been able to discern, the examination in public stage of the new Local Plan process
will remain open to members of the public and interested organisations, ie. any individual or body
making well argued submissions can hope to be invited to take part by the examination inspector.
What the Local Plan should contain – CPRE’s view
The Local Plan is obliged to designate locations for the housing the government has told it to provide.
CPRE acknowledges the need for many more genuinely affordable homes and much more social housing
but we would make the point that the national over-arching target of one and a half million homes has
never been justified. Also, we do not support the new standard method for distributing that figure. That
said, we recognise that local authorities have no option but to comply with the figures they have been
given and we offer our advice as to the most sustainable way to set about meeting the requirements.
Strenuous efforts should be made to regenerate urban areas in need of renewal (preferably at a higher
density) and to place as much new development as possible (not just housing) on previously developed
land in order to protect agriculture/ the countryside. To achieve this, the following actions are required:
• The CEC brownfield register needs to be updated and the owners of suitable land and buildings
need to be encouraged to bring them forward for redevelopment
• Master plans need to be drawn up, not just for the two main centres (Crewe and Macclesfield)
but for the key service centres – to examine where any currently failing retail areas/premises
might be re-designated for housing (or other purposes) and where to target regeneration
• A survey needs to be conducted of all industrial, commercial and business sites to determine
whether any can be partially or wholly turned over to housing
• All ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plans should be analysed to determine whether or not there are any
areas identified in them as being suitable for development that have not been developed
• Land safeguarded in the current CEC Local Plan needs to be reassessed. Where it is still regarded
as suitable, it should be taken forward. That said, there are a number of exceptions which
deserve re-determination, most notably the area known as the South Macclesfield Development
Area – much of which covers an irreplaceable peat bog – Danes Moss. (N.B. Danes Moss has
been chosen as a featured ‘edgeland’ by national CPRE for its ‘On the Edge’ campaign:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/danes-moss-on-the-edge/).
If the actions listed above were carried out, it would reduce reliance on plots that have come forward via
the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises. These are merely aspirations by landowners and developers.
That is why it is so important for all of them to be thoroughly assessed by planners – who need to keep in
mind the aesthetic qualities of landscapes, access to the countryside and nature for urban dwellers and
where National Nature Reserves and wildlife sites are located (ref. Cheshire Wildlife Trust).
Call for sites: locations
Until the launch of this current consultation, it has not been possible to know where most of the
proffered sites were located. An interactive map showing them has now been made available - without
commentary. All it has is a key – orange for housing, deep green for mixed use development and purple
for employment (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/site-submissions/housing-and-employment
sites). It is notable that the majority of sites put forward are Green Belt and Green Gap ‘blind’.
Map of site submissions from Cheshire East Council website
On the ‘Call for sites FAQs’ page there is a promise that consultation will take place “on options for
accommodating development needs” at the ‘plan, content and evidence’ stage of the Local Plan process,
but it is unclear from this statement whether or not the Council’s detailed assessment of all the sites will
be made available then (https://localplan.cheshireeast.gov.uk/call-sites/call-sites-faqs).
It is essential, before the Local Plan proceeds any further, that a professional analysis of the proposed
development sites is published and consulted upon. (According to the most recent strategic planning
update on the CEC website, dated April 2026, “The council will be carrying out a Green Belt assessment
during 2026” but there is no information about a ‘Call for sites’ assessment). There needs to be clear
explanations as to why it is considered appropriate to consider removing Green Belt sites from their G.B.
designation. Ideally, the Green Belt should be regarded as a suitable candidate for environmental
enhancement.
CPRE notes that the largest application for inclusion in the Local Plan, is one for mixed use development
in the Green Belt in the area between Pickmere, Plumley and Knutsford, although there are two more
significant ones at Ashley (also Green Belt) – a site which would join up with Hale in Trafford (below) ...
… and at Leighton north west of Crewe (below)q
Knutsford, Mobberley,
Ashley
The area to the west of
Knutsford and east of the
M6 falls partly within
Green Belt pockets KNO5,
KNO4 and KNO2 in the
Green Belt Assessment that
was carried out for the
current Cheshire East Local
Plan by Arup. All three
were deemed to make a
‘significant contribution’ to
Green Belt purposes.
An area to the west of
Mobberley station is also
targeted for mixed use
development. This was not
assessed as part of the
previous G.B. exercise, as
neither was the area around
Ashley. (Only the environs
of the bigger CEC
settlements were subject to
G.B. assessment).
North West of Crewe
and west of the West
Coast Main Line
The only Green Belt near
Crewe is to the south east
of the town and Green Gap
policies apply to the south
west (between Crewe and
Nantwich), east and south.
The unbuilt areas to the
north west have no
specific policies seeking to
protect them from
inappropriate
development.
The largest single housing proposal in the Green Belt is in the north east of the borough between Poynton
and Bollington around Adlington (in orange), an area where there is also a significant application for
mixed use development. This is the land put forward by Belport as a potential site for a New Town. It is
to be earnestly hoped that this proposal, which CEC rejected, will not be endorsed through the back door.
Poynton and
Adlington
The area in
Poynton to the
west of the
railway line and
north of Hope
Green (in
green) is
proposed for
mixed use. It
falls within
Green Belt
pockets PYO9.
PYO8, PYO7,
PYO6 and
PYO5 as rated
by Arup in the
Green Belt
Assessment
carried out for
the current
Cheshire East
Local Plan. All
were rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’ to
Green Belt
purposes.
The south
Poynton/ north
Adlington area
proposed for
mixed use falls
within Green
Belt pockets
PY22, PY23,
PY24 and
PY25. PY23
and PY25 were
also rated as
making a
‘significant
contribution’.
The bulk of
Adlington was
not assessed in
the Arup G.B.
exercise which
focused on land
around centres.
Another significant mixed use development proposal appears in the site proposals map to the north of
the village of Prestbury, which is also impacted with a number of housing development propositions.
Prestbury
The area in
green to the
north of
Prestbury put
forward for
mixed develop
ment falls within
G.B. pockets
PR25, PR26, PR
27 and PR28.
PR25 was rated
as making a
‘major’ contri
bution to Green
Belt, the others a
‘significant’ one.
CPRE’s objections to the New Town proposals and to the unsuitability of the wider Adlington area is well
recorded on its website here: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care
about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/ with our most substantial report here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/adlington-new-town-report/.
There are many more Green Belt propositions around Macclesfield, Poynton, Wilmslow and Knutsford
and very significant housing developments are proposed all around Crewe and Sandbach, plus a large
housing proposal for the north of Alsager.
The wider
Crewe area,
Sandbach
and Alsager
This screen
shot of part
of CEC’s
map of site
submissions
makes clear
the scale of,
mainly
housing,
development
proposed by
landowners
and
developers
for the
southern half
of the
borough
Additionally, we note a cluster of different development propositions around Wardle and housing and
employment sites to the west and east of Middlewich respectively – and some smaller housing and
employment proposals to the south of Holmes Chapel and around Congleton.
The cumulative land take is not known and neither, at this stage, are any housing numbers or over
arching figures for proposed industrial or commercial development, but the picture presented is deeply
disturbing.
Of particular concern to CPRE is the cumulative effect of a slew of development proposals which have
been coming forward to both Cheshire East and Stockport MBC for pockets of Green Belt land around
Poynton, Woodford and Hazel Grove. It is very important, therefore, that Cheshire East have a strong
Green Belt policy in their Local Plan that ensures the retention of separation between settlements in
Greater Manchester and in Cheshire East remains intact. It is also crucial that they evolve stronger local
protective land use designations than the current Green Gap one – designations that are adhered to
throughout the period of the new Local Plan. Environmental growth (including biodiversity net gain)
ought to be considered on a par with economic growth and, equally, so should social issues. The three
legged stool of sustainability should not be forgotten.
Transport
CPRE would also like to make some pleas in respect of sustainable transport.
One aspect of train travel that is the responsibility of local authorities is access to the rail stations. Many
stations still do not have easy access for the mobility impaired. This situation needs to be addressed.
We would like to see a commitment to addressing this issue and also to helping to facilitate the
reopening of a railway station in Middlewich.
On the active travel front, we would like to see CEC commit to a network of quiet lanes and greenways.
Making it easier for people to use public transport and undertake active travel helps to reduce the
demand for roads and helps to mitigate climate change. And any new roads that are promoted should
be backed by a strong evidence base and an explanation of how climate change will be mitigated.
Cheshire East must do all it can to avoid taking more countryside than absolutely necessary. Once
countryside is lost, it is lost forever. CEC needs to demonstrate that it values the countryside and special
landscapes and the natural environment – and that includes protecting ancient woodlands, ancient
hedgerows and wildlife corridors.
The first stage of the new fast track Local Plan process is similar to the Issues and Options stage of the
previous Local Plan process. Rather than repeat what we said in response to that, we are including that
submission as an Appendix. (It is also available on our website here:
https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/strategic-consultation-submissions/).
Attachments:
- CPRE Cheshire submission (1.58 MB)
