Local plan scoping consultation

These representations are provided to assist in the gathering of an appropriate evidence base to ensure the new Local Plan genuinely addresses the growing need for additional, suitable and sustainable land to accommodate not just new homes, but also the required range of services and businesses to ensure the Borough is able to continue to thrive and meet the needs of its diverse population whilst ensuring the most sensitive areas of the Borough in environmental terms remain sufficiently protected.

Where relevant, we point out certain issues that will require careful consideration in the context of current and emerging National Planning policies, trends in the development and housing industry in general and locally, and where either existing evidence requires to be updated or adjusted, is lacking entirely.

We agree with the broad list of matters that the Local Plan will need to deal with. However, in addition to the items listed at paragraph 2.1, it will be important for the Local Plan to:
• Set a clear monitoring framework in relation to the delivery of housing and employment land;
• Include a sufficiently flexible strategy and policies, that are capable of balancing and adapting to:
• future changes to the planning policy context set by national planning policy, the future Strategic Spatial Strategy for Greater Cheshire, and Neighbourhood Plans;
• emerging markets and associated development demands; and
• shifts in the economy and development viability.

We support the Council’s decision to prepare a new Local Plan, recognising that the current plan is nearing the end of its plan period and that national planning policy has evolved significantly since its adoption. An up-to-date plan is essential to deliver sustainable development for Cheshire East and its residents.

We welcome the Council’s intention to take a coordinated approach to land use, infrastructure provision, design and environmental planning. We reiterate that policies should be flexible and proportionate to the scale and nature of development, so that they do not undermine viability or delivery.

However, we foresee that a key issue for the CEC Local Plan will be how it can progress and relate to the order of plan making as now envisaged by the 2026 NPPF, which sets out more explicit guidance on Spatial Development Strategies.

Part 2 of the NPPF makes it clear that the required parts of the development plan are:
• A Spatial development strategy (SDS), produced by the strategic planning authorities (SPAs);
• A Local Plan produced by the Local Planning Authority (LPAs);
• Minerals and waste plans (M&WPs) produced by the minerals and waste planning authority (M&WAs); and
• A Policies Map, prepared and maintained by the local planning authority, illustrating policies across all parts of the development plan area.

It may also include:
• Supplementary plans, produced by LPAs and M&WAs; and
• Neighbourhood plans, produced by Parish Councils and neighbourhood forums.

Policy PM1: Spatial development strategies then goes onto confirm how such strategies should:
• Set a positive vision for the future growth and change at a sub-regional scale and provide a clear spatial framework for investment and growth. Part 2a confirms this should be for at least 25 years and include an apportionment of the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses that are best considered at a strategic scale for the duration of the plan.
• Part 2b confirms such plans can identify broad locations for growth and regeneration, including new settlements and major urban extensions, major cross boundary development and other key locations with the potential for significant new homes, jobs and other development and broad locations should extend over any strategic site allocations in adopted local plans.
• Part 2c confirms that they should also support economic growth giving spatial expression to the strategic elements of Local Growth Plans and the Industrial Strategy. Footnote 7 confirms that the Industrial Strategy is that published by central Government, dated November 2025.
• Parts 2d-I set out other requirements relating to including where general changes to
• where Green Belt might be required to accommodate the strategy,
• nature conservation and habitat enhancements, protection and enhancement of the historic environment,
• identifying the broad location for infrastructure needs (including that committed to in the 10 year infrastructure plan for the area, sectoral spatial plans and planned strategic infrastructure in local transport plans),
• the use of appropriate plans, diagrams and monitoring frameworks relating to delivery and ensuring that reviews of the SDS prior to 7 years after the adoption of the current version.

Further to the Council’s devolution agreement and the formation of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority, we note that a devolution agreement has been set that seeks to focus £650 million worth of investment funding over 30 years. We also note that the region’s first mayoral election is scheduled for May 2027.

Whilst we respect the fact that the Government have confirmed that out of date Local Plans must be reviewed and new local plans must be advanced at pace/without delay, its production must still be developed with one eye firmly fixed on what is occurring at the sub-regional / SDS level. Indeed, a clear framework and policy will need to be inserted into the Local Plan that commits the Council to undertake an immediate review of the Local Plan following the advancement and adoption of an SDS.

In light of the fact that Warrington and Cheshire West have also commenced a review of their Local Plans at broadly the same time as CEC, we consider that it would make perfect sense for each of the respective Local Plans (or at least their respective evidence base documents) to consider what the vision and growth strategy/requirements would be for the respective areas not just over the next 10 years (as required by Policy PM2: Local Plans) but also over the 30 year period associated with the Combined Authority’s investment programme. We provide further comments relating to this and the Local Plan Period within Section 5.

It is essential that the new Local Plan provides for housing growth across both the northern and southern housing market areas as identified in the adopted Local Plan, ensures a balanced distribution of development and offers a variety of housing choices to meet needs across the borough. Given the number of key settlements and likely infrastructure growth that will be required in the northern parts of the Borough, it is essential that the Local Plan is supported by a robust Green Belt/Grey Belt review of land around those settlements that are surrounded by Green Belt.

In this regard, it is pertinent that the new 2026 NPPF has altered the definition of Grey Belt land to now omit previous 2024 NPPF footnote 7 designations. Whilst we note such designations will still be an important factor in determining whether a site is suitable for allocation, they no longer go to the heart of whether a site meets the definition of Grey Belt land, which is now simply noted as being:
‘For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in policy GB2.’

Whilst we note the Council’s existing Green Belt Assessment, published in July 2015 provides some baseline information, given the substantial changes to national policy, we consider an entirely new and fresh assessment needs to be carried out that ensures it:
• assesses all Green Belt within the Borough and not just parcels around settlements (see NPPF, Annex E.1.a.i);
• assesses suitably defined and scaled parcels of land and sub-divided these appropriately, particularly where this would facilitate the identification of Grey Belt Land (See Annex E.1.a.iv);
• follows the above definition of Grey Belt Land;
• follows the approach set out in 2026 NPPF Annex E paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 when assessing land parcels in terms of determining if they make a strong, moderate or weak/no contribution to purposes (a), (b) and (d) and ensure consistency with these rankings; and
• recognises that villages do not form part of the assessments of purpose when considering Grey Belt land definitions.

We do not disagree with the introductory paragraphs of this section but note our comments in relation to the Combined Authority and the logic in ensuring that any new Local Plan and its associated evidence base are relevant and consistent with the objectives of the Combined Authority and any new and forthcoming SDS. It would be prudent to ensure that if text of this nature is to be included in the Draft Local Plan, it should also include context of where CEC sits within the sub-region and make appropriate comparisons to Warrington and Cheshire West and Chester.

We note that Warrington and Cheshire West and Chester are referenced in this section but as per our comment above, it would make sense to highlight that Cheshire East falls within the Combined Authority Area and make comparably factual comments about the other two respective authorities.

We address this matter in more detail within Section 5 but we consider the Local Plan should make it clear that Cheshire East is strongly aligned with the wider ambitions of the UK Industrial Strategy on the basis of:
a) its close geographical links and connectivity to Greater Manchester and
b) it containing clusters associated with advanced manufacturing and life sciences which are both identified within the selective 8 growth sectors within the UK Industrial Strategy.

We agree with the Council’s identification of the settlement pattern and rural structure of Cheshire East. It is important to recognise that the borough contains two distinct housing market areas: a northern area influenced by its proximity and socio-economical connect to Greater Manchester, and a southern area centred around Crewe and its surrounding settlements.

The northern housing market area includes the principal town of Macclesfield and key settlements such as Handforth, Wilmslow, Knutsford, Congleton, Alderley Edge and Poynton. The southern housing market area contains the principal town of Crewe, alongside settlements such as Sandbach, Holmes Chapel, Nantwich, Alsager and Middlewich.

The majority of the borough’s land area comprises extensive rural countryside, with the northern part largely covered by Green Belt. Only around 18% of the borough’s population lives within the Green Belt, and the housing market is predominantly focused around the urban areas. Towns and villages therefore remain the locations where people most want to live, and where housing need is concentrated.

It is essential that the new Local Plan provides for housing growth across both the northern and southern housing market areas, ensuring a balanced distribution of development and offering a variety of housing choices to meet needs across the borough. This will inevitably result in the need to carry out a full Green Belt/Grey Belt review of land around those settlements that are surrounded by Green Belt.

Whilst we note that this section only includes basic demographic information for the Borough, we consider that it would be appropriate for the Local Plan to specifically identify the proportion of households with occupants that are disabled. This data (alongside other relevant evidence associated with housing needs) may influence where the Council might seek to deliver and/or prioritise new accessible and adaptable homes as part of any Local Plan and the proportion of M4(2) / M4(3) dwellings that might be required.

We consider that the Local Plan period should extend beyond the proposed 15 years, taking account of several key strategic considerations that will shape growth across Cheshire East over the coming decades. We note that the 2026 NPPF has reduced the recommended minimum requirement to 10 years under Policy PM2: Local Plan.

Notwithstanding this, we would welcome a scenario where the CEC Local Plan (alongside the CWAC Local Plan and Warrington LP) cover at least a 25 year plan period and are prepared on an evidence base that takes account of the 30 year investment programme for the Combined Authority.

A Local Plan that is prepared with at least a 25 year horizon and plan period could clearly direct the production of an SDS that could either be adopted at the same time as the Local Plan, or failing that be in a position where it could be progressed and adopted quickly in light of the fact that the Local Plans will have done a lot of the heavy lifting already. Indeed, this would be consistent with Part 1b of Policy PM2: Local Plans, which states:
‘Local Plans can cover a longer time period where this would, for example, help support the delivery of longer-term infrastructure or strategic development’

Importantly, the 10 year period is a minimum requirement. Where strategic development forms part of the spatial strategy (such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing towns and villages), national policy expects a vision that looks much further ahead, typically at least 30 years, to reflect the realistic timescales for delivery.

As previously noted in Section 2, the emerging Cheshire and Warrington devolution deal is expected to significantly increase economic activity across the combined authority area. The devolution process is advancing in parallel with the preparation of the new Local Plan and will bring enhanced transport connectivity, new investment, and improved employment opportunities across the boroughs. The new Local Plan must identify broad locations for long term housing growth that can support and align with the combined authority’s economic ambitions. Settlements with strong employment bases and excellent transport connectivity, such as Holmes Chapel, Macclesfield and Crewe, are the most logical and sustainable locations for accommodating this future growth.

The 2026 NPPF also introduces Policy PM1, which sets out expectations for Spatial Development Strategies at a sub‑regional scale. This is particularly relevant in the context of the combined authority. Policy PM1 requires a strategy for a sustainable pattern of growth over at least 25 years, recognising that a proportion of this growth will need to be accommodated within Cheshire East. The Local Plan must plan positively for this requirement by identifying broad locations for growth.

The Local Plan will also need to consider and address the delivery implications of Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) (in light of HS2 Phase 2b being cancelled) must be considered. Central Government anticipates NPR delivering a £1.6 billion economic boost by 2050. NPR will undoubtably have an impact on Cheshire East as well as the wider city regions of Manchester and Liverpool (especially if the final route passes through Cheshire East and in particular if there is to be a link to Manchester Airport).

This investment will clearly influence the level of growth that should be targeted towards the north of the Borough and in sustainable locations such as Handforth, Wilmslow and Mobberley.