Local plan scoping consultation

Bloor Homes welcome the Council’s progress and intention to prepare a new Local Plan as set out in Cheshire East Council’s notice dated 12th June 2026 and as required under The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2024 (‘the Act’) and The Town and Country planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2026 (‘the Regulations’). The consultation on the scoping of the Local Plan is a critical first step towards advancing the new Local Plan.

Bloor Homes were established in 1969 by Chair and founder, John Bloor OBE. Bloor Homes remain a privately owned business with a proud history of building quality homes. From the regional base in Holmes Chapel, Bloor Homes remain committed to delivering homes and communities with a focus on quality, design and place making, ensuring that high standards are maintained more than 55 years later.

The dedicated team, from planners and designers to tradespeople and customer service professionals, is committed to creating well-designed, high-quality homes that they would be proud for their own families to live in. This commitment has earned them a 5-star Home Builders Federation rating for six consecutive years, and over 98% of its homeowners would recommend Bloor Homes to family and friends.

Bloor Homes are committed to working with Cheshire East Borough Council and the local community to bring forward much needed family and affordable housing which delivers social, environmental and economic benefits for the local area.

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 note the Council undertook a previous issues and options consultation in the Summer of 2024. We support the fact that responses submitted at that stage can still be considered as the Council prepares its New Local Plan. In this context, Pegasus Group provided representations on behalf of Bloor Homes at the time (see document ref: P24-1237 / R003v3 / PL / ST provided at Appendix 1). However, as the Council have noted there have been significant changes to the NPPF since then (with the Scoping Document referencing the 2024 NPPF) and very recently following the publication of the 2026 NPPF that now needs to be accounted for. Significant changes to national policies (which we address in subsequent sections) relate to the following matters:

• Housing needs and changes to the Standard Methodology;
• Green Belt / Grey Belt planning policies;
• More specific policies and definitions included in the 2026 NPPF

Many of our broader and more general observations remain unchanged and overall, we very much support the preparation of a New Local Plan for the following reasons:

• The adopted plan is more than 5 years old. The Local Plan Strategy (LPS) (adopted in July 2017) is now over 9 years old and is therefore due a review on the basis that the NPPF confirms that Local Plan should be reviewed at least every 5 years.
• The adopted plan was prepared under outdated national policy. The LPS covers the plan period from 2010-2030 and was originally submitted in 2014 (following a long lead in for production). It was examined in the context of the 2012 NPPF, which has since been superseded a number of times.

• Growth in Cheshire East has significantly surpassed previous forecasts applied to the adopted Local Plan. Whilst the Inspector confirmed that the originally submitted LPS was unduly pessimistic in terms of employment and jobs growth and housing requirements and put forward modifications to the Council to address these shortfalls, the actual growth of jobs and housing delivery since the start of the 2010 plan period has significantly surpassed the Inspector’s expectations and has been more in line with what much of the development industry put forward at the time.

• The need to identify and release additional land for development. There is a need for the new Local Plan to take account of the strong and evidenced growth within Cheshire East and set a new longer-term plan for the area and release additional land for development to meet evidenced needs.

• New development costs that were not accounted for in the Council’s viability appraisal of the Local Plan and for CIL contributions have come into fruition. A prime example of this is the statutory requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain which was not accounted for when allocating the existing site allocations within the Local Plan.

• The adopted planning policies for the area are very difficult to navigate. From a practical perspective and when seeking to appraise development proposals against the adopted policies in the Local Plan, we have found that there is often a significant overlap (often representative and in some cases contradictory positions) between the numerous policies contained in the various adopted Local Plan documents as set out in the Local Plan Strategy (LPS) (adopted 2017) and the Site Allocations DPD (SADPD) (adopted in 2022), particularly when coupled with the extensive patchwork of Neighbourhood Plan policies, Supplementary Planning Documents, and design guides that cover the area. Indeed, we note there are 43 policies within the adopted LPS and a further 98 policies within the SADPD (not accounting for site specific allocation policies contained within both plans which are also highly detailed in many cases). Having one, up to date comprehensive Local Plan that sets out strategic and development management policies will be of great assistance for the public, planning officers and the development industry.

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.

As highlighted within this section, the 2026 NPPF requires local planning authorities to apply the new Standard Methodology, which results in requirement of 2,530 homes per annum.

Whilst we note that this increases Cheshire East’s housing requirement above the adopted Local Plan requirement (1,800 dpa) and the former Standard Method approach (977 dpa) by 41% and 159% respectively. The requirement set by the new Standard Methodology is justified when taking account of the following:

A. The Government are committed to significantly boosting housing delivery across England as per paragraph 61 of the NPPF and particularly noting the fact that past delivery rates has significantly under delivered against national targets. Indeed, recent Government statements reflect this, including
• Former Deputy Prime Minister (Playing your Part in Building the New Homes We Need, dated 30th July 2024), which confirmed:
'We are in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory. Home ownership is out of reach for too many; the shortage of houses drives high rents; and too many are left without access to a safe and secure home'.
• The forward to the 2025 Draft NPPF, where it was stated:
“The government is committed to tackling this country’s housing crisis. Decades of failure to build enough homes has constrained growth, pushed ownership out of reach for too many, driven rents to unaffordable levels, and seen more and more people fall into temporary accommodation – including 170,000 children.
That is why the government moved within three weeks of entering office to consult on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and finalised these initial reforms in December 2024. Amongst them were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets,…”; and
• The Housing Secretary on 16th December 2025, when announcing the consultation on the 2025 NPPF:
“Right now we see a planning system that still isn’t working well enough. A system saying ‘no’ more often than it says ‘yes’ and that favours obstructing instead of building.
It has real-world consequences for those aspiring to own a home of their own and those hoping to escape so-called temporary accommodation – we owe it to the people of this country to do everything within our power to build the homes they deserve.”

B. The adopted Local Plan figure of 1,800 dpa was based on an Objectively Assessed Housing Need Assessment that dates back to 2015; was influenced by very low/poor delivery rates incurred over the course of the early years of the plan period, and predicated on an average 0.7% jobs growth rate, which has been significantly surpassed since the start of the adopted plan period.

C. The former Standard Methodology was based on the 2014 Household Projections, which are now 12 years out of date, and again, was a projection of past low delivery rates within the Borough.

D. Cheshire East’s actual net delivery of homes since the Local Plan was formally adopted in 2017, actually averages at 2,524 dwellings per annum (see the uploaded figure), which demonstrates the Borough contains a very strong housing market area, that can positively contribute to the Government’s overall objectives to significantly boosting supply at a level that is consistent with the new Standard Methodology requirement.

We are of the strong view that the above points should set out in any updates to the Council’s Housing Evidence base to clearly demonstrate why the new Standard Method requirement is fully justified and should be treated as the minimum housing requirement for the Borough.

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 do not disagree with what has been stated within this paragraph but in light of the 2026 NPPF and its reliance on the national Connectivity Tool, it would be prudent to include some initial information in terms of how central locations within the various settlements within Cheshire East score in this regard when considering the national and local picture.

It would also be pertinent to highlight within the Local Plan, which parts of the Borough and which respective settlements fall within respective Travel to Work Areas (by GDP) (TTWA) noting this is a key policy measure within the 2026 NPPF when considering locations next to ‘well connected stations’ as defined by the NPPF and the policy implications towards land that are within a reasonable walking distance to such locations. We would suggest a plan and text are provided within the Local Plan to make this clear. We have provided an example of the plan at Appendix 2, which highlights the following:

Settlements with a Train Station in the Manchester TTWA:
• Wilmslow
• Handforth
• Alderley Edge
• Styal
• Chelford
• Poynton
• Adlington
• Prestbury
• Macclesfield
• Mobberley
• Ashley
• Disley

Settlements with a Train Station in the Crewe TTWA:
• Knutsford
• Plumley
• Goostrey
• Homes Chapel
• Sandbach
• Crewe
• Alsager
• Nantwich
• Wrenbury

Settlements with a Train Station in the Stoke on Trent TTWA:
• Congleton