Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 7093

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent argues that the emerging Local Plan should plan for a housing requirement above the standard-method figure of 2,530 dwellings per annum, reflecting housing delivery pressures, economic growth ambitions and potential unmet needs. They highlight the Council’s reported 3.3-year housing land supply and consider additional deliverable allocations are needed to restore a five-year supply and reduce reliance on speculative development proposals. The respondent supports a proactive and positive approach to growth, noting recent national policy changes that support certain development outside settlements where housing need exists. They consider a broad range of sustainable development opportunities should be assessed to ensure housing needs can be met throughout the Plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 7094

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports Cheshire East Council’s intention to continue preparing the new Local Plan alongside, rather than waiting for, the emerging Spatial Development Strategy for Cheshire and Warrington. They emphasise that the Council’s current Local Plan is no longer up to date and does not adequately address current housing needs. The respondent notes that adoption of the new Local Plan is not anticipated until March 2029 and argues that any further delay would hinder the Council’s ability to positively plan and direct future development. They therefore support maintaining progress on the Local Plan timetable to provide an up-to-date framework for housing growth, infrastructure planning and future development across the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 7095

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports the inclusion of a clear vision and objectives within the new Local Plan and considers that they should be realistic, achievable and specific to Cheshire East. They argue that the vision should explicitly support delivery of sufficient high-quality housing to meet at least the Borough’s identified housing requirement. The respondent also highlights national policy requiring Local Plan visions to consider longer-term expectations beyond the plan period, particularly for strategic development opportunities. They therefore recommend a longer-term approach to growth that supports the allocation of larger strategic sites capable of delivering housing and infrastructure over an extended period, ensuring development opportunities continue beyond the lifetime of the Plan itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 7096

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports the requirement for the new Local Plan to be informed by a robust evidence base and to plan positively for future growth and housing delivery. They request preparation of a Housing Needs Assessment that examines housing requirements at a sub-area level to ensure local needs are properly understood. The respondent considers that housing allocations should be directed towards the edges of the Borough’s most sustainable settlements, particularly Sandbach, where development can be supported by existing services and infrastructure. They also stress that proposed allocations must be genuinely available and deliverable so that they can contribute to housing supply early in the Plan period and help address current housing land supply pressures.

Comment

Representation ID: 7097

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports a review of Green Belt policy in light of recent national planning policy changes and highlights the introduction of Grey Belt land. They note that Green Belt boundaries may only be altered where justified and after reasonable alternatives have been examined, including brownfield redevelopment, increased densities and assessment of suitable sites outside the Green Belt. The respondent argues that Cheshire East’s housing land supply shortfall and increased housing requirement mean that previously developed land alone is unlikely to meet future needs. They therefore consider that a range of sustainable development opportunities, including suitable sites in the open countryside, will need to be considered through the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 7098

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The scoping document outlines the 4-tier settlement hierarchy within the adopted LPS, which identifies only two ‘Principal Towns’ (Crewe and Macclesfield) followed by 9 Key Service Centres (to include Sandbach).
The Landowners support the recognition of Sandbach as Key Service Centre, which is reflective of its size, range of local services and amenities and access to a range of sustainable transport options, including from Sandbach train station. Residential development should be located to the most sustainable sites, particularly within and adjacent to the Principal Towns and Key Service Centres.

Comment

Representation ID: 7099

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports consideration of a range of development options to meet future housing needs, including urban regeneration, brownfield redevelopment, edge-of-settlement growth, urban extensions and new settlements. They caution against excessive reliance on brownfield sites, noting that such land can be limited in supply and affected by technical or viability constraints. The respondent argues that the Local Plan should allocate a broad range of deliverable sites, particularly sustainable greenfield and edge-of-settlement locations capable of coming forward early in the plan period. They consider this approach necessary to ensure sufficient housing delivery, maintain an adequate supply of land and comply with national policy requirements for meeting housing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 7101

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent considers the emerging Local Plan should align with national policy regarding development outside settlements. They highlight Framework Policy S5, which supports certain residential and mixed-use development outside settlement boundaries where sites are sustainably located, including locations within reasonable walking distance of well-connected railway stations and sites physically related to existing settlements. They also reference policy support for development on edge-of-settlement sites where unmet housing need exists. The respondent argues that sustainable and well-related sites in the open countryside should be prioritised for housing growth and that allocating sufficient deliverable sites through the Local Plan would give the Council greater control over the location and distribution of future residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 7109

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent recognises the need for the Local Plan to establish affordable housing requirements, including overall provision levels and tenure mix. They emphasise that affordable housing policies should take account of scheme viability to avoid undermining housing delivery. The respondent supports alignment with national policy, including provision of affordable housing on-site where appropriate, while allowing off-site provision or financial contributions where these would deliver better outcomes and support mixed and balanced communities. They also advocate flexibility in applying tenure requirements, noting that different affordable housing products may be more suitable in different locations and that overly prescriptive requirements could affect the viability and deliverability of residential development.

Comment

Representation ID: 7110

Received: 01/09/2026

Respondent: The Richardson Family; the Tattersall Family; the Manley Family; and Bluefield Sandbach Limited

Agent: Lichfields

The respondent supports reviewing and updating housing mix policies to reflect current housing needs but argues that the Local Plan should avoid imposing rigid housing mix requirements, particularly on larger sites. They note that national policy does not prescribe specific housing mixes for developments over 150 homes and consider flexibility essential to reflect viability, local circumstances and market demand. The respondent maintains that housing mix should respond to the characteristics of individual locations, with higher-density and smaller dwellings often more appropriate in centres and larger family housing more typical in suburban or edge-of-settlement locations. They recommend a flexible policy approach that allows schemes to respond to changing needs over time.