Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Mrs Fiona Fontes search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 5249
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
I formally object to the potential allocation of land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road for substantial residential development. While recognising the need for new housing, I believe these sites should not progress without robust evidence demonstrating they are necessary, sustainable and deliverable. Key concerns include the former Sandy Lane/Whirley Quarry landfill, potential contamination and groundwater impacts, ecological sensitivity, Green Belt loss, settlement separation, infrastructure capacity, transport, healthcare, schools, utilities and the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall. The response calls for comprehensive investigation of landfill and environmental risks, assessment of cumulative impacts, transparent housing need calculations, infrastructure planning, habitat protection, and meaningful public consultation before any allocation decisions are made
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Planning for growth
Representation ID: 5250
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
The respondent argues that Cheshire East should clearly distinguish between the overall housing requirement and the amount of genuinely new land that needs to be allocated. While the standard method indicates a need for around 2,530 homes per year, or 37,950 over 15 years, this does not automatically justify releasing Green Belt or undeveloped countryside. Before considering additional greenfield sites, the Council should calculate the residual housing requirement after accounting for existing planning permissions, allocated sites, developments under construction, brownfield opportunities, regeneration projects, underused urban land, increased densities and windfall sites. This residual figure should form the basis for decisions on whether any Green Belt release is truly necessary.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Housing
Representation ID: 5251
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
The respondent notes that, while Cheshire East’s 2026 Strategic Planning Update identifies a deliverable five-year housing supply of 8,780 dwellings against a requirement for 13,162, a shortfall in deliverability does not necessarily mean there is insufficient land already allocated or permitted for housing. They argue that the Council should distinguish between land availability and actual housing delivery by publishing information on permitted but unbuilt homes, undeveloped allocations, build-out rates, completion figures, sites excluded from the five-year supply and associated infrastructure constraints. The respondent also requests evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would increase housing completions, emphasising that improving delivery may be as important as identifying new development sites.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Employment and economy
Representation ID: 5252
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
The respondent argues that housing growth should be planned alongside employment provision to ensure sustainable development. While Cheshire East has experienced stronger-than-expected job growth and retains significant employment land, the response questions where future jobs associated with housing growth will be located, particularly around Macclesfield. The Council is asked to publish forecasts for job creation, employment sectors, employment land requirements, workplace locations, commuting patterns and the relationship between new housing and employment opportunities. The respondent is concerned that substantial housing growth without corresponding local employment could increase commuting, traffic congestion, pressure on public transport and car dependency, undermining the sustainability of the Local Plan’s growth strategy.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Representation ID: 5253
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
The respondent argues that Cheshire East must fully assess the cumulative infrastructure implications of major housing growth before allocating additional development sites. This should include current and future capacity of schools, healthcare services, roads, public transport, utilities, waste services and drainage systems. The Council is asked to identify how any required infrastructure, such as school expansions, healthcare provision, highway improvements, electricity network upgrades, water and wastewater capacity, will be funded and delivered. Particular concern is raised about traffic impacts on local roads around Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, as well as the risk of increased car dependency. The respondent emphasises that infrastructure planning should be evidence-led, comprehensive and completed before development decisions are made.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Green Belt
Representation ID: 5254
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
How to respond
Representation ID: 5255
Received: 31/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Fontes
The respondent expresses concern that the Local Plan consultation has not effectively reached residents living near proposed development sites. While acknowledging that this is a scoping consultation rather than a planning application, they argue that communities most affected by potential allocations should have received more prominent and targeted engagement. The consultation period also coincides with the summer holiday season, potentially limiting public participation. The respondent asks Cheshire East Council to explain what steps were taken to notify local residents, parish councils and community organisations, how engagement effectiveness was assessed, whether further consultation or an extension will be provided, and how residents will be proactively informed about future stages of site assessment and allocation.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation and objection to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I would like to make my position clear from the outset.
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence currently available.
I understand that the land shown on the Call for Sites map represents landowner or developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that appearing on the map does not give these sites any additional planning status.
My objection at this stage is therefore to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated, through comprehensive and publicly available evidence, that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I fully appreciate that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional housing. My objection is not to the principle of providing properly evidenced housing. My concern is that the amount of land submitted around Henbury and Whirley brings together a particularly large number of environmental, infrastructure and landscape constraints which I believe need to be properly understood before, rather than after, decisions are made about allocating land for housing.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated groundwater and contaminant migration;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of my most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470.
Of particular importance, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded amongst the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
I believe this is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for possible residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. This is not simply a general concern from residents about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous assessment identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
I do not think the question should simply be whether the boundary of a submitted housing site happens to overlap the mapped boundary of the former landfill.
Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries. Depending on the geology, groundwater conditions and the waste deposited, potential pathways could include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential development, I therefore ask Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, dewatering or changes to drainage might affect those pathways.
I am not claiming that industrial contaminants are currently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. I simply believe that, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established properly before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing.
The possibility that contamination could theoretically be remediated should not be used as a reason for avoiding the need to understand the problem in the first place.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are also historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again, I want to be careful not to make an allegation that I cannot substantiate. I am not asserting that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been proven to have been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry.
However, the historic landfill is documented, and understanding precisely what waste was deposited there is clearly relevant when considering neighbouring land for residential development.
I therefore ask Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to establish whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
I believe this should be established from the original records wherever possible, rather than residents or developers being left to speculate.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important aspect to Sandy Lane Pit which I feel should not be overlooked.
Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts.
This means that the former landfill and surrounding land need to be considered from both a contamination and an ecological perspective.
Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, artificial lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitat could all potentially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury / Whirley area
I have a particular personal concern about the ecological impact of development in this area because of what I regularly see when travelling along the local lanes.
The countryside around Henbury and Whirley is not simply a collection of individual fields. It is an interconnected network of mature hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture, scrub and field margins.
I have frequently seen owls and bats along Whirley Lane and Wrigley Lane, particularly around the area of Whirley Hall, and I have also seen badgers when driving along the local lanes. These are my own observations over time and are one of the reasons I feel strongly that the wildlife value of this area needs to be properly considered.
These are not isolated pieces of countryside. The hedgerows, trees, woodland, pasture and ponds form a connected habitat which wildlife uses across a much wider area than any one proposed development site.
Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider species including bats, breeding birds and badgers. Grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts.
For this reason, I do not think the ecological question should simply be: “Is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”
The Council needs to understand how the wider habitat network works and what happens if several sites are developed at the same time.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can provide bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide feeding habitat for owls and other birds;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes which extend beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively break up habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
I therefore believe that professional ecological surveys should take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to genuinely inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
I also believe it is important to distinguish between the Government's headline housing requirement and the amount of genuinely additional land that actually needs to be allocated.
Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings.
However, this does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.
Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, I ask Cheshire East to publish a clear calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
I believe this residual figure should be the starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land really needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings.
I recognise that this 3.3-year position is important.
However, a shortfall in five-year deliverability is not necessarily the same thing as there being insufficient land which has already been permitted or allocated.
I therefore ask the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence showing that allocating additional land would actually increase annual housing completions.
I believe the distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
Housing also needs to be considered alongside employment.
Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030, based on average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.
The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
This shows that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. However, an important question for the new Plan is where the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth will actually be located.
For Macclesfield specifically, I ask the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which existing employment land can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should explain the likely consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be properly understood before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
Please provide current and forecast primary and secondary school capacity, including pupils generated by housing which has already been permitted but not yet occupied.
Where new schools or extensions are required, the Council should identify:
location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
Please assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as possible new allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist, or whether substantial new housing in this area would inevitably increase car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population should be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
Please establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand from EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
Please establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may look relatively modest when considered on their own. However, taken together, they could create a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
I therefore ask that the Council considers:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The importance and setting of this heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be properly assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
Having visited Whirley Hall regularly over the past 60 years and having lived on [PERSONAL INFORMATION REDACTED] for the past twenty years, I know the surrounding lanes and landscape extremely well. I believe the relationship between the Hall and its rural setting is an important part of what makes this area special.
12. Cumulative impact
For me, this is perhaps the most important issue.
I do not believe the submitted sites should be considered simply as individual fields.
The Council needs to look at the area as a whole and consider the combined effect of:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between all these matters is important.
For example:
• road access can result in the loss of hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
It is this cumulative impact which concerns me most.
13. Consultation and notification
I also wish to express concern about the way this consultation has reached residents living close to concentrations of submitted sites.
I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I understand that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application do not necessarily apply at this stage.
I also acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online.
Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community largely through communication with other local residents.
Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions for the character of our area, I would have expected particularly prominent engagement with residents living immediately around the affected land.
The consultation period, from 21 July until 5pm on Tuesday 1 September 2026, also substantially overlaps the main summer holiday period.
I therefore ask Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish and community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
My specific requests
I therefore ask Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where these are confirmed as the relevant current references, together with any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development in this area is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection and allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and to plan for additional homes.
However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the need to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can be satisfactorily addressed.
In the Henbury and Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of:
a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites.
I ask that they should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my representation has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which it has been registered;
3. that the landfill and contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
