Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Macclesfield Civic Society search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Increase in housing requirements
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent questions whether the Standard Method housing target accurately reflects Cheshire East’s diverse housing markets, noting significant variations in house prices and affordability across the Borough. They argue that increasing the supply of available development sites does not necessarily increase housebuilding, particularly where permitted sites experience slow delivery. They highlight distinct housing-market characteristics in northern Cheshire East and links with Greater Manchester, alongside difficulties providing genuinely affordable housing in higher-value areas. The respondent considers the Government’s targets may not be achievable within the required timescales and recommends more detailed analysis of local housing markets to test the assumptions and implications of the Standard Method.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Changes to Green Belt policy
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the introduction of Grey Belt has reduced the clarity of Green Belt policy and created scope for developers to test and broaden its interpretation through planning applications. They highlight particular concern for Cheshire East given increased housing requirements and pressures on land supply, which could encourage speculative development in Green Belt locations. They also raise concerns about increasingly broad interpretations of criteria such as proximity to railway stations. They recommend that the Council restrict use of the Grey Belt terminology and base its policies firmly on whether land contributes to the core purposes of the Green Belt.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent supports prioritising brownfield development and recommends reviewing recent delivery to test assumptions about its contribution to housing supply. They consider that Macclesfield may have exceeded its previous target of 500 homes, partly through development on sites excluded from earlier brownfield assessments, but warn that remaining opportunities may now be diminishing. They highlight longstanding residential permissions on sites that remain undeveloped and deteriorating, suggesting that market conditions can prevent redevelopment. They recommend that the Council consider making greater use of its available powers to encourage or secure the development of stalled brownfield sites.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
Introduction of the Combined Mayorality may change the background environment, with potentially an overall strategy for the combined authority establishing priorities for funding applications to shape regional growth. Cheshire East has its own economic strengths, the Local Plan should emphasise the future development of these and foster links with the Greater Manchester economy alongside those of the Combined Mayorality.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
It is surprising that there is no mention of HS2 in this section. The cancellation of the section north of Birmingham undermined assumptions for growth included in the current local plan. Remaining uncertainty as to the nature of services north of Crewe and the possibility of the resurrection of a variation of the initial plan for the line’s development create particular uncertainty for planners.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the Local Plan should recognise the role of employers, including partnerships with education providers, in developing a highly skilled workforce. They also suggest greater consideration of the energy sector, particularly opportunities arising from electrification and the need for more distributed energy generation. They highlight the potential vulnerability associated with reliance on major international companies, drawing on the experience of AstraZeneca’s withdrawal from Alderley Park. They recommend that economic modelling considers the resilience of Cheshire East’s economy, including its ability to respond to the potential loss or withdrawal of major employers.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
Given pace of change 15 years with 5 yearly review seems appropriate. Is there scope for some shading in the plan detail for its later years? We note that the proposed end of the plan period coincides with Cheshire East’s target for achievement of carbon neutrality, we would expect this target to feature significantly in the strategic objectives of the plan.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Creating a vision and objectives
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the scope for a distinctive Cheshire East Local Plan is limited by national policy, statutory requirements and financial constraints. They suggest that residents are likely to place greater importance on effective service delivery and reiterate concerns that some proposed targets may not meet the definition of SMART targets. They identify housing delivery, economic growth and achieving net zero as key themes likely to receive broad public support, subject to minimising local environmental impacts. They also highlight the challenge of communicating the Local Plan’s overall vision and strategy when public attention is often focused on individual development sites.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
We look forward to reviewing the assessment methodology when it is available.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the introduction of Grey Belt has weakened the clarity of established Green Belt policy, creating scope for developers to test and broaden its interpretation through planning applications. They highlight Cheshire East’s particular vulnerability to speculative Green Belt development due to increased housing requirements and land supply pressures. They also raise concerns about the expanding interpretation of criteria such as proximity to railway stations and the resulting development of policy through case law. They recommend that the Council limits its use of Grey Belt terminology and instead bases its approach on whether land contributes to the core purposes of the Green Belt.
Full text:
I am making this submission on behalf of Macclesfield Civic Society. I an Acting Chair of the society. I would appreciate if you could also copy in our Secretary [REDACTED] on all correspondence. Two documents are attached:
1 The society's comments on sections of the scoping document arranged by heading topic. In some sections we have addressed specific sub headings, in others a single entry embraces all subheadings. Contributions have been developed collaboratively by the committee.
2 A discussion paper prepared by a committee member addressing the issue of housing targets designed to inform and help structure our discussion. We do not regard it as a formal annexe to our submission as it does not contain information essential to the interpretation of our comments. You may or may not wish to include this in your publication of responses.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this submission.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Keith Williams
[REDACTED]
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
