Local plan scoping consultation

Para 5.17 sets out CEC managing the approach to the Green Belt, considering sites outside the Green Belt first (after other identified steps).
At the 2017 adoption of the current Local Plan, areas were removed from the Green Belt to be Safeguarded Land, offering the potential for development to be considered in reviews of the Local Plan, without needing to further alter the Green Belt.
Confirmation of the status of Safeguarded Land would be helpful.
The issue is not academic. Knutsford’s 30.7 ha of Safeguarded Land is more than at any other KSC. That land would provide theoretically for some 921 - 1,228 new homes if allocated solely for residential development (assuming 30 - 40 dwellings per hectare. Range of density at LPS paragraph 8.57.)

Para 5.23 refers to a review of the settlement hierarchy, which should consider infrastructure provision as well as the items listed.
The review should confirm whether the North Cheshire Garden Village at Handforth East is part of Handforth KSC.

Comment on para 5.24: As stated in the Examination Inspector’s December 2015 Further Interim Views on the draft LPS: “there are almost endless permutations for the spatial distribution of development”.
To an average person, the spatial distribution of development can be expected to be the Local Plan’s most significant issue in its consequences.
Final outcomes of spatial distribution will have serious impacts on communities, on infrastructure provision, and on protecting and maintaining Cheshire East’s high quality environment, which contributes to the quality of life for residents and is an important factor for business.

Para 5.25 refers to a range of factors influencing the distribution of development. To those listed should be added: Settlement character, Biodiversity, sites for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople, and Minerals and Waste sites.
Further:
(i) My representation with fuller substantiation on para 2.6 recommends an assessment of the ‘overheating’ of the north of Cheshire East relative to the south, as a significant influence on the Local Plan’s spatial distribution of development.
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”.
(ii) My representation on para 5.65 is also relevant to the spatial distribution of development.
Para 5.65 refers to Cheshire East’s “significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy contributing around £1 billion annually” to the Borough’s economy, which was “worth £16.9 billion (GVA) in 2023.”
My representation on para 5.65 is repeated here: “In its spatial distribution of development, CEC should avoid prejudicing the success or value of the significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy. The Local Plan’s distribution of development should seek to enhance those elements and not reduce their success or value.”

Para 5.31 refers to the Housing Needs Assessment identifying key housing issues that the Local Plan will need to address.
It is suggested the issues should include homelessness.

Para 5.33 refers to “geographical variations in affordability across the borough”. The need for affordable housing will also vary across the Borough, not least with the proximity of accessible locations nearby - for example, Northwich in Cheshire West and Chester, and Altrincham in Trafford.
As para 4.4 states, Cheshire East “borders multiple neighbouring authorities”. The functional reality of Cheshire East’s Housing Market Area is not confined to the boundaries of Cheshire East.

Para 5.35 states: “delivering affordable housing … may require higher levels of affordable housing on sites released from the Green Belt.”
It is to be expected that delivering affordable housing may require higher levels of affordable housing on residential development sites not limited to those released from the Green Belt.
For many development sites, to effectively meet local needs it will be necessary for the delivery of affordable homes to be at those designated development sites, not by a developer contribution at a different location.
Having granted planning permission for residential development including affordable housing, CEC’s Development Management Team should not modify affordable housing conditions imposed on those permissions unless the developer provides irrefutable evidence of why such modification is essential.
In making provision for affordable housing and in place-making, the Local Plan should aim to respect the character of settlements.

At strategic sites allocated for residential development in the Local Plan, CEC should require developers to submit planning applications which will deliver housing mix as informed by the Housing Needs Assessment.
Without that commitment, CEC should not grant planning permission, unless scheme viability assessments prove that the scheme is undeliverable.
Housing mix should ensure the reasonable availability of bungalows, which can suit some accommodation needs, including of elderly people.

The needs of some elderly people are to live in proximity to the centre of settlements or to a range of facilities including a local neighbourhood parade of shops. CEC should include those needs amongst its site selection criteria for development.
The mixed-use development of town centre sites should be encouraged, not least to facilitate town centre living.
Housing mix should ensure the reasonable availability of bungalows, which can suit some accommodation needs, including of elderly people.
Para 5.40 refers to likely increased demand for a variety of housing options. One option is alms houses, for which there is demand in Knutsford from the Marjorie Hurst charity, which provides accommodation for the elderly.

The NPPF’s Plan-making policy HO6 sets out the same requirement as quoted at para 5.47 for the draft NPPF, and with the same clause: “unless there are strong reasons why these targets cannot be achieved”.
Para 5.48 states: ”Allocating sufficient sites to meet these requirements is likely to be challenging in Cheshire East.”
Para 5.49 refers to a land availability assessment being prepared. Presumably that will - if necessary - provide evidence sufficient for the “strong reasons” to which NPPF HO6 and para 5.47 refer.

Para 5.63 refers to additional housing related policies, including extensions and alterations, and amenity.
CEC’s Development Management Team knows the significance often attached to those policies in representations submitted on applications for planning permission.
It follows that Local Plan policies on matters such as extensions and alterations, and amenity, are still needed (and that the strengthening of those policies should be considered).
Otherwise, people may risk being deprived of the opportunity to make representations, potentially to their disbenefit and of good Planning.

Para 5.65 refers to Cheshire East’s “significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy contributing around £1 billion annually” to the Borough’s economy, which was “worth £16.9 billion (GVA) in 2023.”
In its spatial distribution of development, CEC should avoid prejudicing the success or value of the significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy. The Local Plan’s distribution of development should seek to enhance those elements and not reduce their success or value.
As a matter not only for the Local Plan, the success and value of the Borough’s significant cultural, heritage and visitor economy might be made better known to the residents and businesses of Cheshire East, to recognise more widely - and raise the profile of - those elements of the economy.

Paras 5.67, 5.68 and 5.69 refer to employment land and employment sites.
The Covid pandemic has had impacts across many employment sectors and Local Plan issues. Impacts have been profound - including a reduced need for employment sites, many people working from home and/ or with fluid patterns of working.
Impacts have also been profound of the cancellation of the HS2 northern leg to Manchester, in particular on Crewe and the south west of the Borough.
Especially with these contexts, the Local Plan supports businesses by conveying stability, consistent in its policies whilst updating them, recognising the need for consistency that many businesses prefer, as do many of the communities which they serve, with which they interact and where they are located.
This militates in favour of retaining the key principle of LPS Policy EG 3, that “existing employment sites will be protected for employment use” (with exceptions).
Cheshire East employment sites are well distributed in the Borough, are often located near residential areas, and comprise different types of premises, including Key Employment Sites, Business Parks, Industrial Estates and trading estates. Town centres are also a focus of jobs including in offices, retailing, hospitality, leisure, education, health and administration.
In his 29 June 2026 speech, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention for growth in every postcode. Cheshire East employment locations are well suited to deliver that, including in town centres and local industrial estates and trading estates.