Local plan scoping consultation

At the date of the eventual adoption of the new Local Plan, a measure of the integrity of Cheshire East Council’s Plan preparation and content will be public recognition – or not – of the Plan as ‘The People’s Plan’.
An alternative perspective of the new Local Plan, already gaining traction, is of it being a ‘Developers’ Charter’.
It remains to be seen whether either view, or another view, prevails.

The list of matters that can be addressed in Local Plans includes “seeking good design in new developments”.
That is unduly cautious. It should have read, and be interpreted in the Cheshire East Local Plan as, “achieving good design in new developments”.

At para 2.6, the list of initial work in progress to develop the evidence base includes: “transport modelling, … a review of the current provision of infrastructure, … and consideration of the potential future needs for housing and economic development.”
Points arise:
1. On transport modelling:
- It is understandable that is included in initial work to develop the evidence base.
But in testing “what if?” questions, that implies CEC’s Strategic Planning Team is thinking already of possibilities for the spatial distribution of development, with results available of the 2024 and 2026 ‘Call for sites’ exercises.
The Team will know of its need to retain sufficiently open minds to ensure later engagement with stakeholders is meaningful on the spatial distribution of development.
- Transport modelling should usefully include ways of reducing vehicular traffic congestion, such as the co-ordination of traffic signals, and gyratory traffic systems.
Those local measures in Knutsford have been proposed to CEC, potentially offering improvements in traffic management.
2. On the review of the current provision of infrastructure: it is assumed it will take account of CEC’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan formulated for the current Local Plan. Para 5.95 is noted.
3. On future needs for housing and economic development, Paras 5.31 and 5.69 note Assessments of Housing Needs and Economic Development Needs will be undertaken. For the current Local Plan, work was done on the alignment of housing and employment.
Presumably such alignment will be done for the new Local Plan.
4. It is recommended other work to develop the evidence base should include two additional elements – assessments of:
- best and most versatile agricultural land,
- and the ‘overheating’ of the north of Cheshire East relative to the south – a significant influence on the new Local Plan’s spatial distribution of development and a matter likely to be tested at the Examination into the Plan.
As stated in the Examination Inspector’s December 2015 Further Interim Views on the draft LPS:
“The most contentious issue [for the Spatial Distribution of Development] is the balance of development between the north and south of the borough, and whether sufficient development would be allocated to the northern settlements, particularly those lying within the Green Belt.”
What now, with the passage of time and the Government’s Planning policy changes?
A context is the Prime Minister’s 29 June 2026 speech declaring the Government’s intention for growth in every postcode.
There are several factors indicating relative overheating in the north of Cheshire East, including:
- development pressure in the north of the Borough with its proximity to the more active Manchester conurbation, more than the south’s proximity to the smaller and less active Potteries,
- consequentials from Airport City Manchester and the growth of Manchester Airport in passengers per annum, currently 32.3 million and with capacity of more than 60 million,
- and the previously hoped-for HS2 investment in Crewe, changed because of HS2 to end in Staffordshire. What resulting impacts on the ‘All Change for Crewe: High Growth City’ Strategy?
The issue of relative overheating is the more relevant with Cheshire East now being part of the Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority area and the adjacency of Cheshire East to Warrington Borough. The Vision of Warrington Borough Council in its Local Plan 2021/22 - 2038/39 states: “Warrington will consolidate its position as one of the most important economic hubs in the UK”.

At para 2.9, dates anticipated for the two formal consultation stages are during summer 2027 and spring/ summer 2028.
There are unfortunate consequences of those anticipated dates. Summer can reduce the capacity of some stakeholders to engage in the process as they would wish.
The impact of reduced engagement capacity would not be shared equally by all stakeholders. For example, developers are often better staff-resourced than Parish Councils, Town Councils or Community Groups.
Local Plan engagement is recognised already by stakeholders not to be a level playing field. It is hoped the timing of future consultation stages does not add to inequality and inaccessibility in Local Plan engagement.
CEC’s Principles are relevant at para 6.35.

At para 3.5, the annotation that Cheshire East’s housing need is “Based on latest dwelling stock figures (2025)” implies the housing need figure will vary as the latest dwelling stock figures vary.
Instead of that being left to an implied assumption, it would have been helpful for that to have been stated in the text, if correct – or explained, if incorrect.

Content of these paragraphs is superficial, especially as the Cheshire East Local Plan is to be “in general conformity” with the Cheshire and Warrington Spatial Development Strategy (SDS).
More information should be given, eg:
- how and when will stakeholders be consulted on the SDS?
- what and when will be stages of progression of the SDS before its adoption?
- will the adoption of the SDS require review of the Cheshire East Local Plan?

As to the M6 and M56, their being “strong transport connections” is a strength weakened by traffic congestion.
Moreover, in July 2015 consultants AECOM stated in its Spatial Distribution Update Report:
“There are congestion issues on the highways network throughout Cheshire East, and these would be exacerbated wherever development occurs. As would be expected, the main issues relate to increased pressure on junctions along key routes into town centres and linking to the strategic road networks”.
(CEC engaged consultants, including AECOM, in the Council’s preparation of the current Local Plan.)

And there’s the rub, at para 4.6.
To the extent that there is over-development in Cheshire East or in parts of it, the Borough, or parts of it, will be less attractive for people to live in, work in or visit.
All the more reason for care in the spatial distribution of development.

Paras 4.11 and 4.12 refer to specific “attractions and institutions that are of national or international importance” and to “other historic sites, parks and gardens”.
A settlement can also be of national or international importance in its heritage and culture, and attract very many visitors. The Local Plan should refer therefore to the heritage and culture value of settlements.
Knutsford is the most obvious example in Cheshire East. In addition to its adjacency to Tatton Park referred to at para 4.11, the historic market town is nationally and internationally important with a wide range of heritage and culture interests. (Examples: ‘Cranford’, General Patton, Richard Harding Watt, Royal May Day, and Penny-farthing Race.)
In the 2026 DCMS competition for UK Town of Culture, Knutsford was the only ‘small town’ applicant in Cheshire East (the DCMS population size category of under 20,000 people). (The other applicant towns in Cheshire East were Congleton, Crewe and Macclesfield. None of the Borough’s four applicant towns was shortlisted by DCMS.)
Para 5.65 states Cheshire East “has a significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy contributing around £1 billion annually” to GVA, the borough’s economy being worth £16.9 billion (GVA) in 2023.

I agree the proposal that the new Local Plan covers the period to 31 March 2045.
That respects limits to the relevance of the evidence base supporting the Plan. A period of longer than 31 March 2045 would risk confidence in that evidence.

At para 5.13, the minerals land availability assessment methodology would usefully refer to the expected duration of the extraction of minerals from sites, and for the safeguarding of those sites prior to minerals extraction and for site remediation subsequent to minerals extraction.
Timescales for minerals is relevant, including because of:
- provision of required access to and from minerals sites,
- and the potential location of some mineral sites also being that of possible development. The Local Plan enables cross-reference of areas proposed for mineral safeguarding and extraction to areas proposed for other uses.
Example: 74 ha in north west Knutsford (north of Bluebell Farm) was allocated in CEC’s 2022 draft Minerals and Waste Plan as an Area of Search for sand. Much of the 74 ha is also areas proposed for residential use and for culture, leisure and tourism at Tatton Sports Village, in response made to CEC’s ‘Call for sites’.
Para 5.83 states: “The Local Plan must … identify Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSAs) and safeguard important mineral resources and infrastructure from sterilisation by non-mineral development.”