Local plan scoping consultation

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.

We note that the scale of development to be planned for is not fixed and will be informed by the emerging evidence base. We will comment further once the Council publishes evidence on housing demand. However, we note that paragraphs 5.5 to 5.7 appear to focus on the production of need assessments for housing and employment and exploring ‘opportunities for regeneration’.

The 2026 NPPF makes it clear that the objectives of the policies contained within:
• Chapter 6: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes is to ‘support the delivery of a substantial increase in the supply of homes…’; and
• Chapter 7: Building a strong, effective economy is to ‘enable businesses to invest, expand and adapt in a way that reflects the opportunities, challenges and characteristics of different areas and supports long-term economic growth both locally and nationally’.

In the context of housing, we emphasise that the Standard Method figure represents a minimum requirement at 2,530 dwelling per annum. However, the PPG highlights that housing requirement may be higher than the identified housing need, and authorities should consider the merits of planning for higher growth if, for example, this would seek to reflect economic growth aspirations. This is reaffirmed under Policy HOU2: Setting requirement figures for homes within the 2026 NPPF, where part 3b states the housing requirement figure should:
‘Be higher than the overall figure identified in the local housing need assessment where appropriate and that this will include situations where a housing requirement is necessary to meet the needs of neighbouring areas or to reflect growth ambitions linked to economic development or infrastructure investment.’

In short, if the minimum housing requirement as set by the SDS or the Standard Methodology is not sufficient to meet the growth or infrastructure investment ambitions of the Council and the economic vision for the area, the housing requirement should be increased.

In the context employment and economic needs, NPPF Policy E1: Providing the conditions for long-term economic growth makes it clear that this should start with a clear economic vision and strategy, which takes a positive, proactive and realistic approach to encouraging sustainable economic growth in urban and rural areas, having regard to the UK Industrial Strategy and relevant strategic and local strategies for economic development and regeneration. It goes onto confirm that it is not just existing business needs that should be considered but also wider needs and opportunities for economic growth and investment including relevant market signals and propriety places for investment in key sectors as set out in the UK Industrial Strategy and other programmes such as Industrial Strategy Zones and AI Growth Zones.

In short, whilst it will be necessary for the Local Plan evidence base to assess past growth and land take up to explore the potential need for employment land, NPPF Policy E1 requires a more proactive and visionary approach to be adopted and clearly points to the need to positively identify opportunities for growth.

Based on the Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report (2024/25) as set out in Table 5.1 below, Cheshire East’s jobs growth has fluctuated year on year (seemingly due to more recent changes influenced by Brexit, the pandemic and possibly the Ukraine War). Prior to this, however, jobs growth was very strong. Data shows that prior to Brexit and the pandemic, Cheshire East was successful in generating new employment, with an average of over 3,500 new jobs created year on year between 2010 to 2019 (equating to an average annual jobs growth of +1.9%).

However, the years following the pandemic have shown the local authority to be struggling to maintain employment increases, with job numbers falling from a high of 206,000 in 2019 to 201,000 in 2020. This equates to an annual average loss of jobs at -2.4%.

Over the course of the plan period, however, jobs growth has still average 1.3% per annum and this is still significantly higher than the 0.7% jobs growth the adopted plan was predicated on which led to the adopted Local Plan (and LPS inspector) concluding that an average annual housing target of 1,800 per annum. Based on this alone, this would suggest that the new Local Plan should be targeting an employment growth and investment strategy that looks to achieve at least 1.3% jobs growth per annum and in our view, it should be higher to capitalise on the locational advantages of the Borough and key sectors that align with the UK Industrial Strategy.
Table 5.1 - Employment / Jobs Growth 2010-2024
Year Cheshire East Jobs Annual Change Annual Jobs Growth Change (%)
2010 174,000 / /
2011 176,000 2,000 +1.1%
2012 178,000 2,000 +1.1%
2013 181,000 3,000 +1.7%
2014 189,000 8,000 +4.4%
2015 195,000 4,000 +2.1%
2016 199,000 4,000 +2.1%
2017 203,000 4,000 +2.0%
2018 197,000 -6,000 -3.0%
2019 206,000 9,000 +4.6%
2020 201,000 -5,000 -2.4%
2021 204,000 3,000 +1.5%
2022 204,000 0 0.0%
2023 208,000 4,000 +2.0%
2024 210,000 2,000 +1.0%

Indeed, in terms of generating additional jobs growth going forward, Cheshire East still has an excellent foundation to build upon. Cheshire East accommodates key industries and manufactures that specialise in advanced manufacturing (Bentley Motors / Siemens), Life Sciences (AstraZeneca / Recipharm), Financial Services (Barclays / Royal London) and Professional Services and an increasing level of growth in logistics and distribution.

Many of the above sectors fit neatly within the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy for the UK, issued in November 2025 and noted under the 2026 NPPF Policy PM1. The Strategy targets eight sectors with the highest potential for productivity, exports, and job creation:
• Advanced Manufacturing
• Clean Energy Industries
• Creative Industries
• Defence
• Digital and Technologies
• Financial Services
• Life Sciences; and
• Professional and Business Services.

These sectors are expected to drive national productivity, support the net zero transition, and create 1.1 million new jobs by 2035. However, the Strategy also notes that the logistics sector is a vital contribution to the UK economy and competitiveness of the above 8 key sectors that will drive growth. Cheshire is referred to within the document in relation to Life Sciences and Chemical production in the context of boosting growth in Northern City regions and clusters. The Industrial Strategy also makes reference to improving the connectivity across the North of England, which is now being picked up through the Northern Powerhouse Rail project. It also highlights how the Government will remove blockers in the planning system to drive the economy forward and encourage growth.

The 2026 NPPF embodies the Government’s latest planning reforms but there are also wider initiatives planned by the Government in terms of tax reform and other interventions that purposefully seek to put the UK back onto a high growth agenda, as highlighted in the Industrial Strategy. In short, such reforms are targeting greater levels of jobs growth and productivity.

Ultimately, we consider the Local Plan and its evidence base must clearly set out and recognise that Cheshire East contributes strongly to the UK economy and has a record (pre-Brexit and the Pandemic) in achieving annual growth levels above 2.0% on a regular basis. Furthermore, given the importance of certain key sectors within Cheshire East, such as Advanced Manufacturing and Life Sciences, we do consider there would be merit in the Council determining if it should also apply for an Industrial Strategy Zone in further encourage growth and investment within the Borough.

Whilst we note that Green Belt boundaries can only be changed through Local Plans and exceptional circumstances must exist (except in the context of development around stations), it is clear through NPPF Policy GB2 – Assessing existing Green Belt land, that the preparation of Local Plans should still be informed by a Green/Grey Belt assessment undertaken in accordance with the process set out at Annex E of the NPPF regardless of whether exceptional circumstances exist or not.

Indeed, these assessments must identify Grey Belt land (and go as far as facilitating the identification of Grey Belt land parcels by subdividing areas into smaller assessment units where this is necessary – See Annex E1.a.iv) and inform any Green Belt boundary alterations

It is pertinent to point out that the exceptions test is only dropped in relation to land that is within a reasonable walking distance to a well-connected station. The NPPF Glossary confirms that a reasonable walking distance is around 800m / 10 minutes’ walk subject to local circumstances (i.e. topography / barriers etc) and a well connected station is one where there are (or could be with investment) 4 services an hour or 2 in one direction to a key employment TTWA throughout the day. Any land that falls outside of this definition still needs to be supported exceptional circumstances if Green Belt boundaries are to alter.

Given the Borough’s significantly increased housing requirement of 2,530 dwellings per annum as a minimum, the split housing market area within the Borough, and the importance to ensure existing key settlements can grow in a sustainable manner, it is our view that the new Local Plan will inevitably have to consider Green Belt release as part of a balanced and justified spatial strategy. The scale of need is such that relying solely on non‑Green Belt land will not provide a deliverable or sustainable pattern of growth over the plan period.

We note that the Council is undertaking a borough wide Green Belt assessment. The latest Green Belt evidence the 2015 update to the original 2013 New Green Belt and Strategic Open Gap Study is now out of date. Since those studies were prepared, the real world context has changed:
• Numerous sites in and around settlements have come forward and been built out, altering the status and composition of Green Belt parcels.
• The new NPPF states Green Belt authorities must now prepare Green Belt Assessments and identify Grey Belt land as part of the evidence base for Local Plans.
• The NPPF now includes grey belt land — Green Belt land that makes only a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes A. B and D. The new definition of Grey Belt land no longer requires assessment of whether former footnote 7 constraints provide a strong basis for refusal. This makes identifying Grey Belt land through the Local Plan process simpler.
• The PPG’s guidance on what represents strong, moderate, weak/no contribution to Green Belt purposes A, B and D is unchanged but is now set out in Annex E of the NPPF.

A thorough and robust Green Belt assessment is necessary to establish an accurate and up to date understanding of the current status of Green Belt land across Cheshire East.

We only note that the sites controlled by Bloor Homes are not affected by this designation but agree that this is a designation that will need to be reviewed through the Local Plan.

The Council should look at the potential of each existing settlement in context of sites that are put forward and what these sites might be able to offer in terms of additional services that would support increased levels of sustainable access and growth within the settlement. For instance, this could include the ability for each site to deliver:
• New employment uses and/or allocations,
• New or enhanced provision for local education/schools,
• New shops and local community facilities,
• New indoor and outdoor sporting / recreation facilities or other forms of public open space.
• New public transport infrastructure including new walking and cycle routes, bus routes, stops and/or increased levels of service along existing routes and new train stations or increased levels of service at existing stations where feasible).

Subject to the potential for change, any settlement could potentially be elevated up the hierarchy where such improvements could be made. However, even where newly planned development and associated service could be provided would not result in a change to the settlement’s hierarchy, such change should be seen to be a positive where it would still add to the range of services in the settlement or the capacity and ongoing vitality and viability of existing services.

We agree that the Local Plan will need to set out a clear spatial strategy and distribution of development once the extent of need is identified. However, the evidence base and draft Local Plan should also take account of clear opportunities for development particularly where it is evident that the environmental impacts would be limited, yet the development of land would still positively contribute to economic and social objectives of the NPPF and Local Plan more widely.

Such an approach would tie in with the fact that the housing requirement set by the Standard Method is a minimum requirement and the Government are seeking to significantly boost the supply of land for housing and identified opportunities to grow the wider economy. In short, the allocation of sites does not strictly need to be tied to need but can also be geared towards unlocking and positively planning for suitable development opportunities where they exist, are available, deliverable and suitable and would positively contribute to the Government’s wider growth agenda.

In terms of the current Local Plan spatial distribution, we note the following settlements in particular where Bloor Homes have land interest:
• Crewe is a principal town and a Tier 1 settlement within the adopted Local Plan Strategy (LPS) hierarchy. It has a population of approximately 81,300. The current LPS expects Crewe to accommodate around 7,700 new homes, representing 21.39% of the total housing requirement for the plan period. We consider it is logical to continue to grow Crewe as one of the principal towns within the Borough and were key employment sectors and businesses are located.
• Macclesfield is also a principal town and Tier 1 settlement. It has a population of approximately 55,200. The current LPS expects Macclesfield to accommodate 4,250 new homes, equating to 11.80% of the total planned housing provision. Again, we consider it is logical to continue to grow Macclesfield as one of the principal towns within the Borough and were key employment sectors and businesses are located, particularly when noting that the Council have confirmed that certain key sites for housing as identified in the adopted Local Plan will not come forward (i.e. South Macclesfield allocation).
• Congleton is a key service centre, and the current LPS expects it to accommodate 4,150 new homes, representing 11.53% of the total housing requirement. Progress on the northern link road and the strategic allocation there has been strong, demonstrating that the settlement represents a good housing market area where delivery is evident. Again, we consider it is logical to continue to grow Congleton as one of the principal towns within the Borough and make positive use of strategic infrastructure that has already been delivered. It does not suffer from Green Belt or Green Gap designations, and the northern extent of the settlement sits on the outer and less sensitive edges of the Jodrell Bank Consultation Zone.
• Sandbach is identified as a key service centre (Tier 2). The current LPS expects Sandbach to accommodate 2,750 new homes, representing 7.64% of the total housing requirement. The town has been subject to recent applications and appeals including those by Wain Estates, Bloor Homes and Gladman (all approved) and there are other applications for major housing schemes currently being determined (i.e. Muller). By comparison to many other settlements within the Borough, Sandbach is relatively unconstrained with no Green Belt, Strategic Green Gaps and limited impacts from the Jodrell Bank Consultation Zone and other heritage or environmental constraints. The remaining land controlled by Bloor Homes that is not subject to current planning applications represents logical infill plots when considering neighbouring development proposals or other physical infrastructure in the area.
• Handforth is a key service centre, with the current LPS expecting it to accommodate 2,200 new homes, equating to 6.11% of the total planned housing provision. Whilst growth at the Handforth Garden Village has been slow to progress, we note there has been recent progress on this through MADE Partnerships and Cheshire East, which will see key infrastructure delivered and the commencement of housing development. Assuming such progress continues, it remains a sustainable location to continue to direct additional development. Whilst it is surrounded by Green Belt, it has excellent access to main roads (including the SEMMMS Link Road), a train station with excellent services to Manchester and Crewe and should therefore remain a key priority for continued growth.

• Holmes Chapel and Mobberley are identified as local service centres. The SADPD expects 3,500 new homes to be delivered across all local service centres collectively.
• Holmes Chapel has excellent connection to the M6 via Junction 18 and benefits from a train station and a range of other services, which we consider tip Holmes Chapel into a Key Service Centre category. It would be found to be well placed to address a substantial proportion of the housing requirement. Holmes Chapel is not constrained by Green Belt or Strategic Green Gap designation. Holmes Chapel is not constrained by the Peak District National Park Fringe which includes land to the east of Macclesfield, north, east and south of Bollington, and south east of Congleton. Holmes Chapel is not constrained by Local Landscape Designations which include land to the north of Knutsford, north of Wilmslow, west of Handforth, east of Alderley Edge, north and west of Macclesfield. Holmes Chapel provides ready access to shops, services, amenities, major employment opportunities, and railway infrastructure. Despite not being surrounded by Green Belt, the sustainable growth of this settlement has been severely hampered by the Jodrell Bank Consultation Zone with ongoing objections from the University of Manchester with (in our view) limited credible evidence relating to the true/tangible impacts of development on the success of its continued role and operation.
• Mobberley is surrounded by Green Belt. It benefits from a railway station (albeit located away from the settlement) and a range of key services within the settlement. Whilst parts of the settlement fall within the more restrictive noise contours of Manchester Airport, there are locations to the south that fall within the acceptable zones for residential development (with appropriate mitigation put in place). Bloor Homes would support a proportional level of Growth towards this settlement that reflects its overall role in the settlement hierarchy.

The uploaded table demonstrates that the majority of settlements are largely unconstrained.

5.36. The Local Plan Strategy and SADPD allocated housing development sites around these settlements. When we look at these sites, first we know that the allocation does not add up to the housing need expected to be delivered in the plan period. Indeed only 18,555 was allocate through LPS and a further 275 allocated through SADPD, the rest of the homes are expected to be delivered through existing commitment, windfall sites in local service centres, and small site windfall.
• Crewe – Allocation: around 4,745 new homes / Completion to date: 1,592 homes
o Basford East, Crewe – up to 850 new homes / Completion to date: 15 homes
o Basford West, Crewe – up to 370 new homes / Completion to date: 370 homes
o Leighton West, Crewe – up to 850 new homes / Completion to date: 0 homes
o Leighton, Crewe – around 500 new homes / Completion to date: 81 homes
o South Cheshire Growth Village, South East Crewe – around 650 new homes / Completion to date: 0 homes
o Crewe Green – around 150 new homes / Completion to date: 44 homes
o Sydney Road, Crewe – around 525 new homes / Completion to date: 365 homes
o The Shavington / Wybunbury Triangle – up to 400 new homes / Completion to date: 381
o East Shavington – up to 275 new homes / Completion to date: 275
o Broughton Road, Crewe – up to 175 new homes / Completion to date: 61 homes
• Congleton – Allocation: 2925 new homes / Completion to date: 1,857 homes
o Back Lane/Radnor Park, Congleton – up to 750 new homes / Completion to date: 609 homes
o Congleton Business Park Extension – up to 625 new homes / Completion to date: 39 homes
o Giantswood Lane South, Congleton – up to 150 new homes / Completion to date: 131 homes
o Giantswood Lane to Manchester Road, Congleton – up to 500 new homes / Completion to date: 94 homes
o Manchester Road to Macclesfield Road, Congleton – up to 450 new homes / Completion to date: 529 homes
o Tall Ash Farm, Congleton – up to 225 new homes / Completion to date: 236 homes
o North of Lamberts Lane, Congleton – up to 225 new homes / Completion to date: 219 homes
• Handforth – around 1,750 new homes / Completion to date: 218 homes
o North Cheshire Growth Village, Handforth East – up to 1,500 new homes / Completion to date: 0 homes
o Land between Clay Lane and Sagars Road, Handforth – up to 250 new homes / Completion to date: 218 homes
• Sandbach – around 450 new homes / Completion to date: 421 homes
o Land adj to J17 of M6, SE of Congleton Road, Sandbach – up to 450 new homes / Completion to date: 421 homes
• Holmes Chapel
o Windfall sites completion to date: 872 homes
• Mobberley
o Windfall sites completion to date: 10 homes

We agree that in the event that the Local Plan sets policies for development within Settlements it must be consistent with National Planning Policy and in particular Policy S2 of the 2026 NPPF and add local context without requiring a repetition of the NPPF policy.