Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 4885

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Period, Vision and Objectives
Paras 5.1-5.4
Knutsford Town Council supports the proposed plan period of 2029-2045 as a sensible duration for
the plan
The Local Plan should expressly refer to and emphasise the importance of community led plans for
towns and villages. The delivery of the local plan in Knutsford should support the aims of the Knutsford
Neighbourhood Plan, Knutsford Town Council Strategic Plan and other planned or emerging strategies
being prepared by the Town Council (such as the Knutsford Town Centre Masterplan, Knutsford Green
Spaces Strategy and Knutsford Active Travel Infrastructure Plan).
The objectives of the new local plan should be to meet the mandated housing and employment
development requirements, whilst ensuring:
a) The necessary infrastructure to support growth in towns and villages is provided as early in
the development cycle as possible
b) Development takes place in the most environmentally friendly way possible delivering
sustainable buildings and spaces which are designed to minimise carbon emissions and
manage surface water
c) Biodiversity and ecology are enhanced, with important habitats preserved and habitats
enhanced or created through development
d) The rural character of the borough is preserved, with access to the open countryside retained
and enhanced
e) The borough’s town centres thrive as places to do business and support the everyday needs
of residents
f)
Communities have access to the facilities, services and spaces they need to thrive, with
development supporting the sustainability of and providing investment into existing facilities,
and providing new facilities which are vested in community ownership

Comment

Representation ID: 4886

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Identifying and Assessing Sites
Paras 5.8-5.14
The methodology for assessing sites should be shared with Town and Parish Councils in advance of
being finalised. It should specifically include provision for involving Town and Parish Councils in the
assessment of sites to enabling a meaningful contribution to the determination of the future growth
of their areas.
As part of the site selection methodology, due regard should be given to ensuring development is
appropriately distributed across the borough. This should consider existing and future infrastructure
requirements (e.g. access to schools, medical services, traffic, sport and leisure facilities etc) and must
consider how any deficit in infrastructure will be addressed in tandem with development coming
forward.
The current local plan allocated two sites which were subsequently shown to be of significant wildlife
value (LPS38 and LPS13). In Knutsford (LPS38) this has resulted in consent for development on a site
of high habitat distinctiveness and in Macclesfield (LPS13) this resulted in the withdrawal of proposals
(though only because the site was part owned by CEC) resulting in reduced housing delivery. As part
of the evidence and site selection process, Cheshire Wildlife Trust should be commissioned to assess
the biodiversity/ecological value of land to ensure that environmentally sensitive sites are not
allocated for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Green Belt and Strategic Green Gap
Paras 5.15-5.19
In reviewing the Green Belt, particular attention should be given to three key Green Belt policy
objectives:
a) Preventing urban sprawl – the local plan should minimise the potential subsumption of
northern towns/villages into the Manchester conurbation
b) Prevent the merging of towns and villages – this is particularly relevant for Knutsford where
the policy should ensure there remains a strong green belt boundary between Knutsford and
Mobberley. It is also relevant for Nantwich and Crewe where the ‘green gap’ should be
upgraded to green belt.
c) Preserving historic towns – the Green Belt in the borough should preserve the setting of its
key historic towns, such as Knutsford.
Where it is not appropriate to secure this by amendments to or preservation of the Green Belt, strong
Strategic Green Gap policies should aim to achieve the aim of ensuring neighbouring communities do
not merge.

Comment

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Settlement Hierarchy, Spatial Distribution and Development in Settlements
Paras 5.20-5.28 and 5.47-5.49
The current local plan prioritised housing allocations around the Principal Towns and Key Service
Centres, with limited development at the Local Service Centres and other settlements. Knutsford
Town Council supports the local plan setting out a settlement hierarchy, which continues to be a
sensible approach to strategic planning.
This approach should allow for the allocation of a significant portion of the borough housing
requirement to be distributed to the local service centres and other settlements. In particular it should
look to allocate smaller sites within villages which have the basic amenities to support additional
housing (e.g. a local shop, proximity to a primary school etc). This approach would simultaneously:
a) reduce the development pressure on the borough’s smaller towns
b) promote the development of smaller sites
c) provide sustainable growth for more rural settlements (supporting local amenities)
d) provide investment in more rural settlements through planning obligations and CIL funding
e) provide opportunity for new facilities in rural settlements to be delivered through planning
obligations (e.g. creating new public open space, provision of allotments etc)
In the settlement hierarchy, the currently named “infill villages” should simply be named “villages”.

Comment

Representation ID: 4890

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Affordable Housing
Paras 5.33-5.35
As part of developing the new local plan, each locality should have an up-to-date housing needs
assessment to understand demand for affordable housing.
The 30% affordable requirement should be upheld as a minimum with a greater proportion delivered
where possible; where necessary, this could be further enhanced by use of commuted sums held by
the council to fund additional affordable units on development sites.
Housing affordability continues to be a significant issue in Knutsford, where house prices are
significantly higher than many other areas. The result of this is policies where pricing of affordable
housing at a percentage of market value does not deliver truly affordable units. An illustration of this
is that the market value of a 2-bed home on the Tabley Park development in Knutsford is
approximately £475,000, a 30% discount to £332,500 would still make this unaffordable for many first
time buyers. The local plan should therefore consider requiring greater discounts off the market price
in areas such as Knutsford, where the market price is significantly higher than average, to ensure that
these homes are genuinely affordable.
The local plan should address the conflict between ensuring high-quality homes and the impact this
has on affordability.
The local plan should specifically support Cheshire East Council delivering its own socially rented
affordable housing schemes on surplus land it holds.

Comment

Representation ID: 4893

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Housing Mix and Housing for Older People
Paras 5.36-5.41
As stated above, a housing needs assessment for each major settlement should be undertaken to
identify the types of housing which are needed in that community. Policy should then require
developments to deliver a housing mix in accordance with the assessment, either a proportionate mix
or delivering development that meets the greatest needs.
The housing needs assessment should include the needs of older persons accommodation to identify
what is needed in each locality (e.g. supported living, bungalows, alms houses, care homes etc). This
should be locality specific and more specific than the council’s 2019 Residential Mix Study. When
allocating any strategic development sites, the council should consider the need to require sites to
deliver institutional living and, for all sites, policy should require the delivery of a suitable proportion
of homes designed for older people.
The provision of bungalows in development has been extremely lacking. This is an important housing
type which enables older residents to move into accommodation that enables independent living. A
specific policy should require the delivery of bungalows and their long-term retention (i.e. preventing
conversion into dormer bungalows or adding storeys).
The majority of privately developed retirement living (e.g. McCarthy Stone) are out of the price range
for many retirees. Affordable single living properties should form part of the housing mix. For large
sites, policy should require developers to work with local alms house providers (or local councils to
establish such a provider where none exists) to create a section of alms houses within developments,
this could constitute a portion of the affordable housing requirement for that development. The
Marjorie Hurst Trust (which operates such housing in Knutsford) cites demand for further units.
The local plan should explore the allocation of sites for retirement villages which comprise regular but
small homes for independent living, supported living, residential care homes and dementia care all on
the same site. This should be led by the housing needs assessment.
Additionally, Knutsford Town Council considers the local plan should ensure the provision of housing
designed for young people – for example simple, lower cost apartments.

Comment

Representation ID: 4894

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Employment and Economy
Paras 5.65-5.69
It is recognised that since the current Local Plan Strategy there have been significant changes in
employment demand, predominantly brought about by flexible working which has arisen post
pandemic. However, it is important that the plan continues to safeguard sites for employment uses
and as such the principle of policy EG3 of the CELPS should be retained.
Since the 2017 Local Plan there has been a significant increase in homeworking, particularly within
large employers, leading to reduced demand for large office accommodation. An assessment should
be undertaken of current vacant/unoccupied employment accommodation to inform whether any
further types of employment development are necessary.
Consent for new employment development on virgin sites should not be given where demand could
be met from existing sites. Policy should promote the reuse or redevelopment of employment sites
where they are no longer in demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 4895

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Town Centres
Paras 5.70-5.75
There is a general view that Knutsford has an abundance of some town centre uses (e.g. hairdressers)
and a dearth of others (e.g. affordable clothing). Whilst it is recognised that this is largely outside the
scope of a local plan, any measures which support balancing retail provision would be supported.
Knutsford Town Council is developing a Town Centre Masterplan (as guided by the Knutsford
Neighbourhood Plan) which will seek to identify solutions to a range of issues within Knutsford’s town
centre, such as parking provision, pedestrian accessibility and public realm. Policy should expressly
support the implementation of such plans and secure developer contributions to its implementation.

Comment

Representation ID: 4896

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Transport and Infrastructure
Paras 5.91-5.95 and 5.112
All major development should be required to fund active travel improvements which connect the
development site with areas to which journeys would be made (e.g. schools, town centres, transport
hubs) to promote active travel. Town and Parish Councils should develop active travel infrastructure
plans to direct where this investment is needed, beyond the strategic investments in towns identified
in the LCWIPs.
Policy should require all developments to incorporate measures which promote active travel within
and beyond the sites, for example cycle/pedestrian linkages (shortcuts) within the development and
connecting to existing streets/paths, provision of infrastructure to promote active travel (e.g. cycle
shelters/parking on green spaces) and cycling/footpaths within the sites. Where relevant, this should
be expressly referred to in the site allocation. This will be best informed by Town and Parish Councils.
Nationally, there have been a number of tragic accidents involving fires from exploding batteries.
Policy should secure that new housing includes a safe place for the charging of electric scooters and
e-bikes to prevent them from being charged in arears which could present a safety hazard in the event
of a fire.
A policy should continue to support the reopening of the Middlewich Branch Line and a new railway
station in Middlewich. This could deliver a wide strategic upgrade to the railway in Mid Cheshire and
will be key to increasing capacity on lines such as the Mid Cheshire Line.
Whilst it is recognised that it is outside the control of the local authority and there are no current plans
for this, policy should support development which enable the enhancement or expansion of public
transport networks to ensure there is no impediment to, for example, expansion of the Greater
Manchester tram network.
Policy should require all major housing developments to be designed to incorporate bus routes,
whether or not there is currently a service which would visit. For example, there should be space for
bus stops/laybys and the ability for buses to travel within a development.
Where possible, new development should contribute to the expansion or introduction of bus routes
to serve the development connect it with key employment, shopping, leisure and education sites.
Parking Standards
The requirement to provide three parking spaces per dwelling for 4/5+ bedroom homes should apply
within Key Service Centres as it does in the remainder of the borough. This is a particular issue where
extensions/rebuilds increase the size of homes without providing an increase in on-site parking,
leading to on-street parking which clutters streets and leads to pavement parking.
Parking size standards should be updated to reflect the larger size of modern cars and ensure sufficient
space is provided for the size of cars which are now commonly owned.
Current parking standards do not require cycle parking provision for C3 uses other than for
flats/apartments. There should be a requirement for cycle parking provision for C3 Dwelling Houses
and HMOs.
The local plan should support the increased provision of parking in towns where there is an identified
parking shortfall or where it would contribute to the sustainability of a town centre. This should
support the development of multi-storey or subterranean car parks where they are designed to be in
keeping with the surrounding area.

Comment

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Knutsford Town Council

Natural Environment
Paras 5.96-5.103
The local plan should have a suite of policies which ensure any development strongly contributes to
the natural environment. This should include polices which:
• ensure planting schemes are predominantly native species and suitable for the area
• require native, non-invasive hedges as plot separation rather than fences (and require their
retention)
• result in the delivery of on-site biodiversity enhancements e.g. through the creation of
wildflower meadows, wetland areas and woodlands etc.
• require significant numbers of trees and hedgerows to be planted across developments
• require development to contribute to an enhancement of wildlife corridors to and from the
site with landscaping plans which incorporate internal wildlife corridors throughout the site.
• require nature to be designed into buildings by providing nesting space and shelter for birds,
bats and bees and provide ‘hedgehog highways’ and similar measures
• promote larger domestic gardens. The emerging practice is for significantly smaller gardens
which places great pressure on their usage and will lead to reduced biodiversity i.e. arising
from resistance to planting trees which shade small gardens etc.
• require development sites to have a greater amount of open space across the site