Local plan scoping consultation

As a Macclesfield resident, I am concerned that new development in the area surrounding Ivy Road and Whirley Road could worsen traffic and place greater pressure on essential services, and I would like the new plan to protect Green Belt land from development while ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I am asking that these concerns be clearly reflected in the scope of the Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.

Housing and affordable homes
Cheshire East needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes, but that does not mean every greenfield site is suitable. The council should first show how many homes could be provided on brownfield and underused land, in town centres and on existing safeguarded land such as LPS19. It should also consider sensible increases in housing density in places already close to shops, services and public transport. We should be building up in the right places before continuing to build out into the countryside.

Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.

Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.

Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.

Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Sandy Lane Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.

Please ensure the scoping sets out how Green Belt protection, support for local services (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) and robust energy infrastructure considerations will influence site selection and development feasibility. If these requirements cannot be fulfilled, I would expect a clear outcome that development is refused. I also request prioritising brownfield or derelict sites for redevelopment before greenbelt sites, and prioritising affordable housing over profit-driven developments.

As a Macclesfield resident, I am concerned that new development in the area surrounding Ivy Road and Whirley Road could worsen traffic and place greater pressure on essential services, and I would like the new plan to protect Green Belt land from development while ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I am asking that these concerns be clearly reflected in the scope of the Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.

Housing and affordable homes
Cheshire East needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes, but that does not mean every greenfield site is suitable. The council should first show how many homes could be provided on brownfield and underused land, in town centres and on existing safeguarded land such as LPS19. It should also consider sensible increases in housing density in places already close to shops, services and public transport. We should be building up in the right places before continuing to build out into the countryside.

Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.

Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.

Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.

Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Sandy Lane Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.

Please ensure the scoping sets out how Green Belt protection, support for local services (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) and robust energy infrastructure considerations will influence site selection and development feasibility. If these requirements cannot be fulfilled, I would expect a clear outcome that development is refused. I also request prioritising brownfield or derelict sites for redevelopment before greenbelt sites, and prioritising affordable housing over profit-driven developments.

As a Macclesfield resident, I am concerned that new development in the area surrounding Ivy Road and Whirley Road could worsen traffic and place greater pressure on essential services, and I would like the new plan to protect Green Belt land from development while ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I am asking that these concerns be clearly reflected in the scope of the Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.

Housing and affordable homes
Cheshire East needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes, but that does not mean every greenfield site is suitable. The council should first show how many homes could be provided on brownfield and underused land, in town centres and on existing safeguarded land such as LPS19. It should also consider sensible increases in housing density in places already close to shops, services and public transport. We should be building up in the right places before continuing to build out into the countryside.

Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.

Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.

Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.

Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Sandy Lane Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.

Please ensure the scoping sets out how Green Belt protection, support for local services (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) and robust energy infrastructure considerations will influence site selection and development feasibility. If these requirements cannot be fulfilled, I would expect a clear outcome that development is refused. I also request prioritising brownfield or derelict sites for redevelopment before greenbelt sites, and prioritising affordable housing over profit-driven developments.

As a Macclesfield resident, I am concerned that new development in the area surrounding Ivy Road and Whirley Road could worsen traffic and place greater pressure on essential services, and I would like the new plan to protect Green Belt land from development while ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I am asking that these concerns be clearly reflected in the scope of the Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.

Housing and affordable homes
Cheshire East needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes, but that does not mean every greenfield site is suitable. The council should first show how many homes could be provided on brownfield and underused land, in town centres and on existing safeguarded land such as LPS19. It should also consider sensible increases in housing density in places already close to shops, services and public transport. We should be building up in the right places before continuing to build out into the countryside.

Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.

Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.

Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.

Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Sandy Lane Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.

Please ensure the scoping sets out how Green Belt protection, support for local services (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) and robust energy infrastructure considerations will influence site selection and development feasibility. If these requirements cannot be fulfilled, I would expect a clear outcome that development is refused. I also request prioritising brownfield or derelict sites for redevelopment before greenbelt sites, and prioritising affordable housing over profit-driven developments.

As a Macclesfield resident, I am concerned that new development in the area surrounding Ivy Road and Whirley Road could worsen traffic and place greater pressure on essential services, and I would like the new plan to protect Green Belt land from development while ensuring infrastructure keeps pace with growth. I am asking that these concerns be clearly reflected in the scope of the Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.

Housing and affordable homes
Cheshire East needs more homes, including genuinely affordable homes, but that does not mean every greenfield site is suitable. The council should first show how many homes could be provided on brownfield and underused land, in town centres and on existing safeguarded land such as LPS19. It should also consider sensible increases in housing density in places already close to shops, services and public transport. We should be building up in the right places before continuing to build out into the countryside.

Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.

Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.

Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.

Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Sandy Lane Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.

Please ensure the scoping sets out how Green Belt protection, support for local services (hospitals, doctors and pharmacies) and robust energy infrastructure considerations will influence site selection and development feasibility. If these requirements cannot be fulfilled, I would expect a clear outcome that development is refused. I also request prioritising brownfield or derelict sites for redevelopment before greenbelt sites, and prioritising affordable housing over profit-driven developments.