Staffordshire council area

Selling Land in Staffordshire Moorlands

Checked on 29 September 2026

Staffordshire Moorlands passes the government's delivery test with room to spare, yet its council cannot show five years of housing land, because supply is measured against a far higher yearly figure than the delivery test uses. Recent building has gone to Cheadle and the villages while allocations in Leek and Biddulph wait, and a partial review approved for consultation in August 2026 would raise the target to 497 homes a year.

Free review of your land in Staffordshire Moorlands or call 07958 351879

We pay for the planning, at our own cost and risk
Your price is agreed up front, in writing
If planning is refused, you keep your land and owe nothing

In short

We buy land in Staffordshire Moorlands and welcome land of every kind there: fields and paddocks, inherited land, old yards and larger holdings.

Staffordshire Moorlands can show 2.95 years of housing land, short of the five years national policy expects. That shortfall is evidence of need which decisions must weigh, so a well placed field next to a town or village can make a case outside the local plan. It is not a guarantee. Land in the Green Belt faces stricter national tests. Its local plan dates from September 2020, more than five years ago.

We look for 2 acres or more next to, or well related to, a town or village, with a road frontage or a way to get one.

The next step is a free, confidential desktop review. We tell you which route, if any, suits your land, with no obligation.

Staffordshire Moorlands in Figures

The government's latest figures for the council, its latest five-year housing land supply, and where its local plan stands.

Housing Delivery Test 2025
160%
Meeting its housing requirement.
Five-year housing land supply
2.95 years
Short of five years: national policy treats this as evidence of unmet housing need. Position at 1 April 2025. Stated by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, in its Planning Applications Committee report of 22 January 2026.
Checked source
Homes built against homes needed
817
of 512 needed, April 2022 to March 2025
Most recent strategic plan adopted
September 2020
More than five years old, so its housing figures are usually replaced by the government's standard method.
New plan progress
Latest step
Cabinet approved a partial review of the 2020 plan for Regulation 18 consultation on 11 August 2026 (at least 8,448 homes from 2026 to 2043, 497 a year, with an A50 Growth Corridor of about 3,000 homes); its report gives 31 December 2026 as the last date to submit under the existing system
Checked source

See how Staffordshire Moorlands compares with the other 143 councils we cover

Sources: Housing Delivery Test: 2025 measurement, MHCLG, published 17 August 2026; Local plans: monitoring progress, Planning Inspectorate, August 2026. Local plans move quickly, so always check the council's own website for the latest position.

The Land We Look for in Staffordshire Moorlands

Fields adjoining the development boundaries of Leek, Cheadle or Biddulph that lie outside the Green Belt.
Land around Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook, where the draft plan looks for most of its growth.
Green Belt land that sits tight against a village with a safe walk to shops and buses, or that carries lawful buildings or hardstanding.
Old mills, yards and depots inside the towns, where policy S4 applies.
Land adjoining a larger village's development boundary, where policy H1 supports limited infill, and rural exception sites where a demonstrable local need for affordable homes exists.

Affordable housing is set at 33% on sites of 10 or more homes or half a hectare, unless viability evidence justifies less; the plan's viability zones rank Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook lowest and Endon, Alton, Waterhouses and Wetley Rocks highest. There is no Community Infrastructure Levy; Section 106 agreements apply, as our guide to Section 106 and CIL explains.

All of the planning cost is ours. Under our option the price is settled before any work starts, above today's agricultural or current use value; you carry on using the land meanwhile, and should planning fail it stays yours with nothing to repay. Each stage is on our how it works page.

The planning detail in full

Leek, Biddulph, Cheadle and a Third in the Peak Park

Between the Potteries and the Peak District, the first question for any site is which authority and which part of the plan cover it:

Three towns, twelve larger villages, 29 smaller. Policy SS2 of the adopted plan puts Leek, Biddulph and Cheadle at the top of its settlement hierarchy, home to around 54% of residents on the plan's figures, with 22% more in Cheddleton, Endon, Werrington with Cellarhead, and Blythe Bridge. Policy SS8 names twelve larger villages with development boundaries, Alton to Wetley Rocks; policy SS9 lists 29 smaller villages with no boundary and only limited development.
A third in the Peak Park. The plan records that a third of the district lies inside the Peak District National Park, where the National Park Authority is the planning authority under its own plan; the district council plans for the rest.
Green Belt over about 30% of the rest. So say the plan and the monitoring report; the plan's inspector wrote that it covers the western part of the district, "affecting about half of the Plan area", and the map matters more: in his words Biddulph is surrounded, about half the countryside around Cheadle is Green Belt but its eastern side is not, and the central belt of the district is largely free of restrictive policies.
Three neighbourhood plans. The monitoring report for 2024 to 2025 shows Biddulph, Checkley and Leekfrith adopted, and six more areas, Leek and Werrington among them, designated only.

As our Staffordshire page shows, most of the county builds above target; the Moorlands' shortage is of land.

Above Target on Delivery, Short of Land

The Housing Delivery Test 2025, published on 17 August 2026, counted 817 homes built over three years against 512 required, a score of 160%. That requirement averages far less than the 320 homes a year the 2020 plan asks for.

On land supply, the picture reverses. The committee report of 22 January 2026, on 159 homes at Blythe Park, Cresswell, told councillors the council could show 2.95 years at 1 April 2025. It gave no calculation and no yardstick.

The January 2026 figure has a history. At the January 2025 inquiry into Bloor Homes' appeal at Froghall Road, Cheadle, the inspector's decision records, the council started at 3.51 years, could not show that seven of its sites were deliverable, and "for the purposes of this appeal" accepted 2.95 years. The committee report dates the same number to April 2025 without a new calculation, so most likely carried the inquiry figure forward. Either way, every figure since has been under three years: the July 2026 committee report on nine bungalows at Kingsley described "an undersupply (less than 3 years)".

Why Both Can Be True

The council's monitoring report for 2024 to 2025 supplies the numbers. From 2014 to March 2025 the district built 2,203 homes, about 200 a year, 1,317 behind the plan's pace; the year to March 2025, at 336, was the first to beat 320. Where they were built matters too:

Net completions from Table 6.1 of the Authority Monitoring Report 2024 to 2025. In 2024/25 alone Leek built 7 homes and Biddulph 13, Cheadle 124 and the rural areas 192.
Area	Plan's share of homes	Homes built 2014/15 to 2024/25	Share actually built
Leek	30%	518	23.5%
Biddulph	20%	248	11.3%
Cheadle	25%	612	27.8%
Rural areas	25%	825	37.4%
District	100%	2,203	100%

The yardstick is also rising. The plan passed five years old in September 2025, so national policy replaces its requirement with the standard method. The council's Cabinet report of August 2026 gives that as 497 homes a year, "over 50% higher" than the plan's figure. The delivery test looks back three years at a modest requirement; the supply test looks five years ahead at the plan's 320 or the standard method's 497.

5.32 Years of Land at Adoption, and a Warning

The shortage was foreseen. The adopted plan set 320 a year against a historic delivery rate it puts at 161, and after completions, permissions less a 10% lapse rate and 100 for the National Park, policy SS4 had 3,763 to find from 2019. It identified 3,419 in allocations and windfall allowances, "a shortfall of about 350 dwellings, equivalent to just over a year's supply", the inspector said.

The inspector's report of June 2020 found 5.32 years of supply at adoption, on a 20% buffer for "persistent under delivery" with a 788-home shortfall spread to 2033 by the Liverpool approach, and warned that without continued intervention it was "unlikely to be able to demonstrate a 5-year supply going forward". No staged requirement had been proposed "despite the considerable step-change in delivery embraced by the Plan"; the standard method then gave 194 homes a year, a figure since more than doubled.

What the Shortage Does for a Field

Above 75% on delivery, unmet need is not treated as evidenced automatically. The supply shortfall is evidence of unmet need to be weighed under policy S5 of the August 2026 framework, not an automatic finding, for land well related to a settlement and served by infrastructure. Inside the development boundaries, policy S4 applies whatever the numbers: approve unless the harm would substantially outweigh the benefits.

Allocations Moving in Cheadle, Waiting in Leek and Biddulph

The monitoring report is blunt: "Allocated sites in Cheadle and the Rural Area are being built out with little or no progress on allocated sites in Leek and Biddulph." Its table at March 2025:

Leek. Land at the Mount (345 homes), land beside Newton House on Cheddleton Road (179) and land at Cornhill (50) had no planning application submitted.
Biddulph. Wharf Road (442 homes) and Tunstall Road (105) had masterplans prepared; Yarn and Minster Mills (57) had no application.
Cheadle. Phase 1 of Cheadle North (320 homes) was complete and phase 2 awaited a decision; the first part of Cecilly Brook was finished, and the rest, like Mobberley (430), had no application.
Rural area. Blythe Vale, Blythe Bridge (300 homes) was in its second phase and Ash Bank Road, Werrington (75) complete.

The Cabinet report of August 2026 adds that developer activity "has been particularly lacking in Biddulph and Leek", with pressure around Cheadle, "where a number of speculative sites have come forward outside of the settlement boundary". One is land east of Froghall Road, refused by the council and allowed on Bloor Homes' appeal on 26 March 2025, the inspector calling around 70 affordable homes a very strong benefit "given the very low level of affordable housing delivery in recent years". Continuing the 2020 strategy, the report expects, would bring more of the same.

Biddulph's gap was written into the plan. The inspector cut about 255 homes of Green Belt land west of the Biddulph Valley Way from the Wharf Road allocation, declined to safeguard three Gillow Heath sites, and put 65% of the plan's supply deficit in Biddulph "because of Green Belt restrictions". Paragraph 9.8 of the plan promises the next update "should also include a comprehensive review of the Green Belt around Biddulph"; the partial review cannot move the boundary, so that passes to a northern council's plan.

The North Staffordshire Green Belt and the Grey Belt Test

The district shares its Green Belt boundary with Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Stafford and Cheshire East, and 2026 committee reports place sites beside Kingsley and Wetley Rocks inside it. Policy S5 does not apply there. The route is grey belt: Green Belt land that plays no strong part in checking sprawl, keeping towns apart or protecting historic towns. Homes there need evidence of need, which a supply short of five years or a delivery result under 75% will usually give, and larger schemes must meet the Golden Rules. Here the first holds today. The adopted plan adds no local test: policy H1 says only that national Green Belt policy applies, and its inspector accepted release in just three places, Tunstall Road in Biddulph, a parcel at Mobberley Farm in Cheadle and Ash Bank Road in Werrington.

The Cabinet report estimates that the grey belt rules open up "around 80% of the designated Moorlands green belt to development". That is an estimate across the whole designation, not a finding on any field.

Two Refusals in July 2026, and What They Teach

The Planning Applications Committee refused two small grey belt schemes on 23 July 2026, applying the framework then in force. Neither failed on need. Both failed on the land itself:

Kingsley, nine bungalows beside the development boundary. Officers accepted the site "could be regarded as being 'grey belt'", but found it would encroach into the countryside, and it would have lost a football pitch.
Wetley Rocks, up to four homes on Mill Lane. Officers found the land "is Grey belt", with "a demonstrable unmet need", but it lay some 600 metres outside the village's development boundary with no footway for about 200 metres along Mill Lane, and they adopted the highway authority's view that it was "poorly located in terms of accessibility".
The lesson. Grey belt status and evidenced need open the door; the site must still sit well against a village, spare the open countryside and offer a safe walk to buses and services.

Yards with lawful buildings count as previously developed land, farm buildings do not; our grey belt guide explains why.

A Partial Review at 497 Homes a Year

Policy SS4 of the adopted plan committed the council to review it "no later than 5 years from its adoption". The review came in the sixth year, and narrower. On 11 August 2026 Cabinet approved a partial review for six weeks of consultation under Regulation 18, its report explaining that with a new plan-making system and reorganisation both coming, the council "will not be able to undertake a full review". It updates the settlement hierarchy and housing policies and adds an A50 Growth Corridor policy, but cannot allocate sites or move the Green Belt boundary.

The draft policies plan for at least 8,448 homes from 2026 to 2043, 497 a year, and split them like this:

Table 6.3 of the draft partial review (August 2026). The government's figure covers the whole district; the Park's 100 homes count as provided for, leaving 5,615 to find elsewhere.
Area	Share	Homes to 2043	Still to find after commitments and windfall
A50 Growth Corridor	36%	2,994	2,622
Leek	19%	1,632	935
Cheadle	16%	1,360	704
Rural areas, including the villages	15%	1,275	468
Biddulph	13%	1,088	886
National Park	1%	100	None

The a50 Corridor at Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook

The largest change is the corridor, where draft policy SS8a looks for around 3,000 homes. Beyond Blythe Bridge and Forsbrook the corridor "is largely comprised of open countryside", and the draft leaves "precise boundaries" and allocations to a future plan "prepared by the new northern Staffordshire council". No field is allocated by this review, but it signals where the council expects most growth; our guide to call for sites and local plan stages explains how to put a site forward as a plan moves on.

The Moorlands Between a Partial Review and a Northern Council

The Next Delivery Result and the Next Supply Figure

At 160% the Moorlands sits clear of all three of its lines: under 95% brings an action plan, under 85% a 20% buffer on the five-year figure, and under 75% policy S5 treats unmet need as evidenced. Supply is the figure to watch: the council has given it at an appeal inquiry and in committee reports, never in a published calculation, and its monitoring report, published each December, contained none for 2024 to 2025.

A Deadline of 31 December 2026 for Submission

The Cabinet report gives that date as the last point for submitting under the existing rules, after a Regulation 19 consultation and a Full Council vote; missing it would mean a new-style plan on a 34 month timetable.

Reorganisation on Hold

The government settled on a northern unitary council joining Staffordshire Moorlands with Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, expected by the Cabinet report from 1 April 2028. Since the government's review opened on 7 September 2026, Stafford Borough Council's page records the Staffordshire plans as on hold.

What That Means for Timing

Beside a town or larger village, outside the Green Belt: worth looking at now.
Grey belt: now, where the site passes the tests the July 2026 refusals turned on.
In the A50 corridor: prepare for the review and the later allocations plan.

Questions About Land in Staffordshire Moorlands

The district builds more than the government asks. Why is my field near Cheadle still worth a look?

Because supply is measured differently from delivery. The council cannot show five years of land, and that shortfall is evidence of need to be weighed for well placed land outside the Green Belt.

My land is near Blythe Bridge. Will the A50 Growth Corridor allocate it?

Not through this review, which leaves boundaries and allocations to a future plan. Evidence prepared now helps with that plan and any application meanwhile.

The council says most of its Green Belt could be grey belt. Does that cover my field at Kingsley?

Not automatically. That was an estimate across the whole Green Belt; in July 2026 a grey belt scheme at Kingsley was refused for its effect on the countryside. Each field turns on how it sits against the village.

Part of my farm is inside the Peak District National Park. Who decides?

The National Park Authority inside the park and the district council outside it, so we check first which parts of a holding could come forward.

Biddulph and Leek allocations have not been built. Does that help or hurt my land there?

It shows the plan's growth has not arrived where it was meant to. A site that can prove it is ready to build speaks to that, and the evidence is work we pay for.

What price will you pay for my land?

We agree a fixed price with you at the start, before any planning work begins, and it is set above what your land is worth today. We cannot name a figure before we have looked at your land, because it depends on the site itself: its size, its access, how many homes it could take and the costs that come off land value, such as affordable housing, road works and drainage. After the free desktop review we can talk about a price, and once agreed it is written into the agreement.

When would I be paid?

You receive the agreed price on completion, once planning permission has been secured. The agreement sets out the milestones along the way, and it continues while any planning application or appeal is being decided. Until completion you carry on using your land as you do now, and we pay for all of the planning. If permission is not granted, you keep your land and owe nothing.

Tell Us About Your Land in Staffordshire Moorlands

It takes about two minutes. We only need your postcode, your name and a phone number or email; the rest helps us look properly.

We reply within 2 working days, by phone or email, whichever you prefer.
The desktop review is free and confidential, with no obligation.
If we agree terms, we pay for all of the planning, which on a larger site can reach £300,000.

About your land

Which council area is the land in?

Type a few letters to find a council. Own land in more than one area? Give one here and tell us about the others below.

Postcode or nearest village *

Approximate size in acres

Not sure? Give your best guess.

Current use

Where is it?

Access

Land Registry title number (optional)

Your details

We need a phone number or an email address, whichever you prefer.

Your name *

Phone

Best time to call (optional)

Anything else we should know? (optional)

We use your details only to reply about your land. We do not contact the council or anyone else about it without your agreement. See our privacy notice.

Sources

Figures on this page come from the Housing Delivery Test 2025 (published 17 August 2026) and the Planning Inspectorate's local plan monitoring to August 2026, with newer plan milestones checked on 24 September 2026. We update the page when new results or plan milestones are published. Planning positions change quickly, so always check the council's own website before relying on it.