Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Macclesfield Civic Society search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the settlement hierarchy and protection of gaps between settlements will be particularly important in Cheshire East. They highlight concerns that incremental development could erode Green Belt gaps around Poynton, Adlington and Macclesfield, potentially resulting in settlement coalescence, and suggest strengthening Green Belt policy around Macclesfield. They note the Council’s use of green gaps around Crewe and propose a similarly robust approach in the north of the borough. Given the scale of future housing requirements, they also suggest that the Council should identify a preferred location for a substantial new settlement at an early stage, helping to provide a planned alternative to incremental Green Belt development.
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 existing settlement hierarchy is a logical model that should be retained subject to review of possible promotions and demotions as a consequence of changes during the current plan period
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:
We regard provision of delivering affordable houses in the right place as a priority and look forward to reviewing policy proposals as they emerge.
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 good to see that the affordable homes target has been exceeded by 5% . We look forward to reviewing further analysis of a breakdown of home types and tenures delivered and future requirements to be identified in the housing needs assessment
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
Housing for older people and specialist accommodation
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
Whilst demographics might reveal under-provision current evidence in Macclesfield may suggest oversupply in the town of this class of housing with major commercial providers not going forward with proposals. It is important to identify differences between open market and social housing needs for this demographic sector.
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
Housing diversification and providing for small and medium sized sites
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
We encourage an emphasis on supporting this sector. Within Macclesfield we have experience of local developers and architects delivering interesting and popular developments that contrast favourably with the cookie cutter developments of the major housebuilders.
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 recognised that town centres will need to diversify to continue to attract people to them. However the plan should make it quite clear where the main focus of retail and daytime activities is, to resist these activities moving away from the traditional centre and leading to a decline in footfall. So the plan should state that within this area preference will be given to activities and businesses which make a strong contribution to the daytime economy.
Town centre development is also heavily reliant on transport and other infrastructure. Continuation of the work of town centre support groups within CEC, Macc TC and business sector should be acknowledged and supported by 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
Transport and infrastructure
Respondent: Macclesfield Civic Society
Representation Summary:
The respondent considers that the Local Plan needs a coordinated approach to transport and development, particularly given the potential for increased development around railway stations. They highlight Macclesfield’s rail connectivity but question whether existing rail infrastructure and passenger capacity can accommodate additional demand, alongside limited evening bus services and layouts of some developments that do not adequately support bus access. They recommend that development near stations is informed by detailed assessment of rail capacity, including any necessary infrastructure beyond the Plan area. They also highlight uncertainty over future HS2 services and its implications for north-south rail capacity, development and sustainable transport.
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:
Laudable aims but difficult to implement consistently. Poor road surfaces, potholes crumbling road edges present risk of injury or death to cyclists, similarly erosion of road markings on cycle lanes and cycle boxes at traffic lights all increase risk of accident. Easy to write the policy but difficult to implement. A 20mph speed limit in towns would be a positive but unpopular policy move.
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 climate change section does not reflect the increasing urgency of climate change or sufficiently identify issues specific to Cheshire East. They seek clarification on whether the Council’s 2045 carbon-neutral ambition applies to Council operations or the borough as a whole. They suggest that the Local Plan should address locally specific challenges, including targets for renewable energy generation, balancing peat conservation with development pressures such as at Danes Moss, and the approach to data centres reliant on on-site fossil fuel generation. They consider these important policy issues given that the Plan period will extend to the Council’s stated net zero target.
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.
