Local plan scoping consultation

I write in response to the local plan scoping consultation, which closes at 5pm on 1 September 2026. I should declare an interest at the outset: my company is a land promoter active in the borough.

Settlement hierarchy and the role of Knutsford

We support the retention of a settlement hierarchy in the new plan, and Knutsford's continued position as a Key Service Centre. Knutsford is a sustainable settlement with services, employment and a rail connection, and it should take a meaningful share of the borough's growth rather than being constrained by its Green Belt setting alone.

We also support the principle of a clear and permanent separation between Knutsford and Mere. Any growth to the north of Knutsford should be planned so that a legible, defensible gap between the two is retained. We would encourage the council to define that gap explicitly in the plan, rather than leaving it to be inferred from the Green Belt boundary, so that its function is understood and protected as growth is planned around it.

Land availability assessment methodology

Our substantive comments relate to the land availability assessment methodology referred to at paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11, and to the Green Belt evidence that will sit alongside it.

First, the filtering criteria should not exclude small sites at the outset. Given the council's current housing land supply position, small and medium sites capable of early delivery have a particular value: they come forward quickly, are attractive to a wider range of housebuilders, and do not carry the lead-in times of strategic allocations. A minimum site size threshold applied as a blanket filter would remove exactly the sites best placed to help in the short term.

Second, Green Belt assessment should be carried out at a fine enough grain to be meaningful. Strategic parcel-level assessment is a reasonable starting point, but where a large parcel is scored as a whole, small enclosed sites within it — sites which are read as part of the settlement edge rather than as open countryside — can be swept up in a score which does not reflect their individual contribution. We would ask that the methodology allow for site-specific assessment where the character of a parcel is not uniform, and that it apply the criteria at Annex E of the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026, which are directed at Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d).

Third, where the plan releases land from the Green Belt, we would encourage the council to satisfy itself that the whole of the release area can and will come forward. Leaving isolated undeveloped parcels within an otherwise developed area does not serve the plan well: it produces awkward residual pockets which are difficult to manage, weakens the permanence of the new boundary, and delivers fewer homes than the release was intended to provide. This is a particular risk at settlement edges, where small parcels in separate ownership sit between larger holdings.

We understand that this consultation does not invite site submissions and that further opportunities will follow as the plan progresses. We intend to participate at each stage and would be glad to discuss any of the above with officers.

I write in response to the local plan scoping consultation, which closes at 5pm on 1 September 2026. I should declare an interest at the outset: my company is a land promoter active in the borough.

Settlement hierarchy and the role of Knutsford

We support the retention of a settlement hierarchy in the new plan, and Knutsford's continued position as a Key Service Centre. Knutsford is a sustainable settlement with services, employment and a rail connection, and it should take a meaningful share of the borough's growth rather than being constrained by its Green Belt setting alone.

We also support the principle of a clear and permanent separation between Knutsford and Mere. Any growth to the north of Knutsford should be planned so that a legible, defensible gap between the two is retained. We would encourage the council to define that gap explicitly in the plan, rather than leaving it to be inferred from the Green Belt boundary, so that its function is understood and protected as growth is planned around it.

Land availability assessment methodology

Our substantive comments relate to the land availability assessment methodology referred to at paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11, and to the Green Belt evidence that will sit alongside it.

First, the filtering criteria should not exclude small sites at the outset. Given the council's current housing land supply position, small and medium sites capable of early delivery have a particular value: they come forward quickly, are attractive to a wider range of housebuilders, and do not carry the lead-in times of strategic allocations. A minimum site size threshold applied as a blanket filter would remove exactly the sites best placed to help in the short term.

Second, Green Belt assessment should be carried out at a fine enough grain to be meaningful. Strategic parcel-level assessment is a reasonable starting point, but where a large parcel is scored as a whole, small enclosed sites within it — sites which are read as part of the settlement edge rather than as open countryside — can be swept up in a score which does not reflect their individual contribution. We would ask that the methodology allow for site-specific assessment where the character of a parcel is not uniform, and that it apply the criteria at Annex E of the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026, which are directed at Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d).

Third, where the plan releases land from the Green Belt, we would encourage the council to satisfy itself that the whole of the release area can and will come forward. Leaving isolated undeveloped parcels within an otherwise developed area does not serve the plan well: it produces awkward residual pockets which are difficult to manage, weakens the permanence of the new boundary, and delivers fewer homes than the release was intended to provide. This is a particular risk at settlement edges, where small parcels in separate ownership sit between larger holdings.

We understand that this consultation does not invite site submissions and that further opportunities will follow as the plan progresses. We intend to participate at each stage and would be glad to discuss any of the above with officers.

I write in response to the local plan scoping consultation, which closes at 5pm on 1 September 2026. I should declare an interest at the outset: my company is a land promoter active in the borough.

Settlement hierarchy and the role of Knutsford

We support the retention of a settlement hierarchy in the new plan, and Knutsford's continued position as a Key Service Centre. Knutsford is a sustainable settlement with services, employment and a rail connection, and it should take a meaningful share of the borough's growth rather than being constrained by its Green Belt setting alone.

We also support the principle of a clear and permanent separation between Knutsford and Mere. Any growth to the north of Knutsford should be planned so that a legible, defensible gap between the two is retained. We would encourage the council to define that gap explicitly in the plan, rather than leaving it to be inferred from the Green Belt boundary, so that its function is understood and protected as growth is planned around it.

Land availability assessment methodology

Our substantive comments relate to the land availability assessment methodology referred to at paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11, and to the Green Belt evidence that will sit alongside it.

First, the filtering criteria should not exclude small sites at the outset. Given the council's current housing land supply position, small and medium sites capable of early delivery have a particular value: they come forward quickly, are attractive to a wider range of housebuilders, and do not carry the lead-in times of strategic allocations. A minimum site size threshold applied as a blanket filter would remove exactly the sites best placed to help in the short term.

Second, Green Belt assessment should be carried out at a fine enough grain to be meaningful. Strategic parcel-level assessment is a reasonable starting point, but where a large parcel is scored as a whole, small enclosed sites within it — sites which are read as part of the settlement edge rather than as open countryside — can be swept up in a score which does not reflect their individual contribution. We would ask that the methodology allow for site-specific assessment where the character of a parcel is not uniform, and that it apply the criteria at Annex E of the National Planning Policy Framework published on 17 August 2026, which are directed at Green Belt purposes (a), (b) and (d).

Third, where the plan releases land from the Green Belt, we would encourage the council to satisfy itself that the whole of the release area can and will come forward. Leaving isolated undeveloped parcels within an otherwise developed area does not serve the plan well: it produces awkward residual pockets which are difficult to manage, weakens the permanence of the new boundary, and delivers fewer homes than the release was intended to provide. This is a particular risk at settlement edges, where small parcels in separate ownership sit between larger holdings.

We understand that this consultation does not invite site submissions and that further opportunities will follow as the plan progresses. We intend to participate at each stage and would be glad to discuss any of the above with officers.