Local plan scoping consultation

Tatton Estate welcomes the preparation of an up-to-date Local Plan. It supports the Council’s recognition that the starting point for determining the level housing development is the Government’s standard methodology, equating to 2,530 homes per annum. This scale of need requires a balanced portfolio of deliverable sites, including strategic and smaller allocations and urban and rural opportunities.

Housing should be planned as part of complete places. Site allocations should establish clear requirements for transport, education, healthcare, utilities, green infrastructure, affordable housing and community facilities. The Council should assess the net improvement a proposal can deliver, including whether development can make an existing settlement more sustainable, rather than treating the current absence of services as a permanent constraint.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published on 17th August 2026 is clear that Local Authorities are expected to meet, as a minimum, the standard method calculation for housing need. For Cheshire East this will, as the LPSD acknowledges, represent a significant increase on the adopted housing requirement.

This uplift reflects the sustained need and demand for housing across the Borough. This is illustrated by the comparatively strong rates of completions of housing following the adoption of the current Local Plan, which whilst positive, have continued to fall short of the full need for housing, as evidenced by sustained affordability issues and growing numbers of households on the authority waiting list.

The NPPF continues to expect authorities to test whether the minimum need is representative or whether a higher requirement is justified with Council correctly recognising (at paragraph 3.7 of the LPSD) that the final housing requirement could be higher.

A proper reflection on the scrutiny of the housing requirement through the examination of the adopted Local Plan, and specifically the evidential justification for elevating the requirement to demonstrate alignment with planned economic growth, is an important consideration for the evidencing of need, even in the context of the standard method.

It is noted, in this context, that the LPSD acknowledges that, with reference to jobs growth, the adopted Local Plan has seen average annual growth of 1.3%, significantly exceeding the target prescribed in the Plan of 0.7% per annum (paragraph 5.68 of the LPSD). The likelihood of this was consistently expressed by many representors at the previous Local Plan Examination and it is reasonable to assume this level of growth will be sustained and indeed exceeded recognising the economic assets in the authority and anticipated infrastructure investment associated with Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) for example.

It is therefore important that in progressing the informing evidence base that this success and future investment potential is acknowledged and a positive approach taken to sustain growth over the next plan period. This aligns with the Government’s vision, as articulated through the National Industrial Strategy.

In providing for the homes and employment land that is required, it is critical that the Local Plan acknowledges the sustained existence of different functional market areas within the Borough. This recognises the size of the Borough and the relationships that settlements in the north and south have with respective proximate larger economic centres.

Of particularly note, settlements in the north of the Borough (loosely defined as the previous Macclesfield district administrative area) are strongly related to the south Greater Manchester housing market as a result of strong commuting links by road and rail. This has historically driven high demand for housing and commercial floorspace in this market area within the Borough. The challenge of supply keeping pace with demand has continued to create challenging affordability pressures for local communities.

The LPSD identifies and seeks to summarise changes to national planning policy in relation to Green Belt since the existing Local Plan was produced and adopted.

The following points are highlighted at this stage as relevant to the onward development of the Local Plan in the context of the recently published NPPF:

a) Paragraph 2 of Policy GB3 of the NPPF confirms that exceptional reasons to amend Green Belt boundaries through a Local Plan include where a Local Authority cannot otherwise meet its development needs in full having considered the full potential of non-Green Belt sites for this purpose.
The consideration of alternatives to the use of Green Belt land includes assessing whether suitable sites to meet the development need exist outside of the Green Belt (Policy GB3 paragraph 2c).

In this context, suitable is a relative term. A proper consideration of whether development needs can be met without reliance on Green Belt is not simply a question of whether there is, theoretically, sufficient land for this purpose but rather the context to that land is an important consideration in determining its suitability as an alternative to Green Belt release. For example, does sufficient non-Green Belt land exist in the right locations, according to the intended spatial strategy, what are the land’s accessibility characteristics, is it located where needs exist and is the land able to support the requisite infrastructure improvements to accommodate development?

Through Policy GB3, NPPF effectively requires a consideration of such matters in determining how much Green Belt land is needed to meet development needs and where. For clarity, it directs plan making authorities away from a process of exhausting all non-Green Belt opportunities, irrespective of their context, and then proceeding with the absolute minimum level of Green Belt release required to deliver a numerical development requirement. Instead, it requires a consideration of the suitability, and sustainability of sites (considered in the round), to meet development needs in a manner which accords with the objectives of the Local Plan and the achievement of most sustainable outcomes. This principle is further clarified through Policy GB4d. An appropriate site appraisal methodology will need to be developed to reflect this approach.

Policy GB3 also directs plan making authorities to identify suitable land around well-connected stations for development and that where a development plan’s spatial strategy does this, exceptional circumstances do not need to be used to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. Cheshire East has several well-connected stations and stations where, through planned investment, the frequency of services to station can increase a locations connectivity.

b) The LPSD notes that if there is need to release land from the Green Belt to meet development needs, grey belt land should be considered first. In accordance with Policy GB4 of the NPPF this sequential approach should be applied where ‘… this promotes a sustainable pattern of development overall.

This is to say that the sequential approach to the release of Green Belt sites must be applied in the context of the need to achieve a sustainable pattern of development overall. Thus, consistent with the point made above, when considering Green Belt sites, the land’s broader attributes need to be considered in determining its suitability for allocation, not just its grey belt credentials. A site’s status as grey belt does not override all other considerations in selecting sites from the Green Belt for allocation.

Overweighting of a site’s grey belt situation, in a consideration of candidate Green Belt releases, should therefore be avoided as directed by NPPF Policies GB2 and GB4.

It is important that the approach to the identification, filtering and assessment of sites for allocation is based on a methodology which reflects the direction provided by NPPF policies GB2, GB3 and GB4 in this regard.

It is agreed that the Local Plan must provide for more than just the quantified need for employment land and ensure that the needs of different facets of the modern economy are provided for.

Within the LPSD, the Council highlights that the strong job growth has been achieved where there remains a healthy supply of employment land (375 ha, paragraph 5.68). Whilst in quantitative terms this appears significant, it is strongly recommended that the evidence base thoroughly re-assesses the suitability, and in particular the market attractiveness, of this supply of land as to the extent to which it meets the needs of key sectors and the needs of the modern economy as documented in NPPF Policy E1.
2.18 It is observed in this regard, for example, that the supply of remaining land along strategic road corridors (the M6 and M56) in the northern part of the authority in particular is comparatively modest in the scale of recognised elevated demand and NPPF’s recognition of the specific locational requirements of the freight and logistics sector (Policy E3). This must take adequate consideration of the economic advantages the authority has on the basis of its proximity to large populations and areas of economic activity in Greater Manchester and Merseyside linked by this road network.

Recognising the datedness of the adopted Local Plan and its evidence, it is critical that account is given to the emerging demands and market signals arising from digital infrastructure, data centres and gigafactories in the authority, again recognising its connectivity, existing digital clusters within the authority and in close proximity to Greater Manchester, for example. The emergence of a need for data centres since the last Local Plan in particular should be directly considered within the evidence base and will necessitate a specific policy response within the Local Plan.

There is a requirement for the Local Plan to recognise and provide for rural business development in accordance with NPPF Policy E4. This recognises that the rural economy is a significant contributor to the Borough’s economic success.

Rural settlements in the north of the borough have demonstrated that rural and village locations can support start-ups, hybrid working, local services, advanced manufacturing, research and development and flexible workspace where they are well connected or can be made sustainable. The co-location of homes, employment, active travel, green infrastructure and improved public transport through the planned growth of current rural settlements in the Borough would reduce the need for longer car journeys and strengthen local labour markets.

There is a need to progress the Local Plan without delay, notwithstanding the pending preparation of the SDS. As such, the Local Plan will need to allow for circumstances where the SDS, as a strategic policy document sitting ‘above’ the Local Plan, identifies and sets out strategic development needs which the Local Plan does not reflect.

This can be managed through the Local Plan acknowledging the relationship between it and the SDS and the potential requirement for an early review of the Local Plan to ensure any misalignment is addressed given the role of a Local Plan as a key delivery vehicle for the SDS.

The Tatton Villages proposition provides a corridor-based growth opportunity which should be considered in both strategies. It links existing settlements and stations with Tatton Park, Manchester Airport, Knutsford and Greater Manchester and can provide a coherent basis for planned investment rather than isolated piecemeal developments without a joined-up strategy for delivering local infrastructure improvements.

Tatton Estate supports an integrated assessment of environmental, social, economic, health and equality effects. Reasonable alternatives should be assessed consistently and at an appropriate level of detail through the SEA process. In this regard, the assessment must consider both adverse effects and the capacity of development to deliver net improvements, including affordable housing, services, employment, public transport, active travel, accessible green space, habitat creation, sustainable drainage and heritage enhancement.

The assessment should also consider cumulative and corridor-wide outcomes. A coordinated group of allocations under single long-term ownership may deliver infrastructure and environmental networks that would not be achievable through fragmented sites assessed in isolation. The SEA must deploy a methodology which allows such matters to be taken into account.

The Local Plan spatial portrait should identify the distinct role of northern Cheshire East and its functional relationship with Greater Manchester. This area contains strong strategic assets including the M56, Manchester Airport, the Mid-Cheshire Line, Knutsford and Tatton Park. It also contains rural settlements where limited growth and declining services have reduced sustainability over time. These opportunities and challenges should inform the spatial strategy and evidence base.

Cheshire East should not be assessed as a self-contained housing or economic market. The northern part of the Borough has strong cross-boundary relationships with Trafford and the wider Greater Manchester economy, while the Mid-Cheshire Line connects communities across Cheshire West, Cheshire East and Greater Manchester. Evidence on housing, employment, transport and infrastructure should reflect these functional geographies and be prepared jointly where appropriate.

The LPSD notes the existing connectivity characteristics of the Borough, including links into Greater Manchester to the north and international connections through Manchester Airport. This connectivity means Cheshire East is, in economic and housing market terms, strongly linked to and influenced by Greater Manchester particularly, with this being most acute in the north of the Borough which interface with areas of high housing demand in south Manchester, whilst also being well connected to the city centre.

Whilst this context is an influence on the new Local Plan, it is also important that the Local Plan recognises and is informed by the future potential connectivity context to the Borough, including Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) and potential tram/train links between Altrincham, Hale and Manchester Airport via Ashley through an extension of the Mid-Cheshire Line.

NPR particularly will have a strategic influence on the Borough’s connectivity with surrounding settlements and areas of economic activity, impacting on movement patterns and changing the dynamics of localised demand for homes and employment space, its relationship with Greater Manchester, Manchester Airport and its contribution to the economy of the northwest.

The influence of this future investment is an important consideration in the onward development of the Local Plan including in respect of the scale of housing and employment development needed and its distribution.

The connectivity portrait presented within the LPSD is too focused on motorways and inter-city rail. It should also recognise the strategic role and unrealised capacity of the Mid-Cheshire Line and its stations, including Ashley and Mobberley. The line connects Chester, Northwich, Knutsford, Altrincham, Stockport and Manchester and provides access to employment, education, services and visitor destinations.

The Local Plan should set an outcome of retaining the existing rail services as a minimum and working towards at least two trains per hour in each direction, supported by development-generated patronage, station access improvements and coordinated investment. It should safeguard routes and land required for station, walking, cycling and interchange improvements. This would advance policies TR1, TR3 and TR8 of the 2026 NPPF and benefit existing communities along the whole corridor.

The portrait should also recognise Tatton Park as a major destination generating substantial visitor movement through the Borough. Improved public transport and active travel access to the wider Tatton area would support the visitor economy while reducing pressure on the highway network.

In addition, there are planned active travel improvements, such as the Greater Bollin Trail, that will enhance local connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians and the plan should recognise and this and similar projects as part of the proposed transport infrastructure investment.

The acknowledgement of Cheshire East’s economic success story must form a fundamental foundation of the Local Plan.

Considerable time was taken up through the Examination of the adopted Local Plan on the appropriate level of job growth which would be used to underpin the evidencing of need for both employment and housing.

The LPSD itself acknowledges that the level of growth planned for - 0.7% growth in jobs per annum - has been significantly exceeded. Indeed the authority has successfully achieved average annual job growth of 1.3% (paragraph 5.68 of the LPSD).

There is every reason, in the context of national and local economic objectives, to expect such a level of growth to be sustained over this plan period. The implications of facilitating this to occur and the role of identifying sufficient land to accommodate related business and population growth is a critical requirement of this plan and should be approached positively in its preparation.