Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Mrs Nicola Wilson search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 5230
Received: 30/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Wilson
The respondent objects to potential Green Belt development around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane, arguing that these fields form an important boundary preventing the outward sprawl of Macclesfield. They contend that previous constraints relating to Green Belt protection, highways, flooding, ecology and infrastructure remain unchanged and question any reclassification as “Grey Belt.” The response prioritises brownfield redevelopment, empty homes and higher-density development in sustainable locations before releasing productive farmland. Concerns include loss of wildlife habitats, flood risks, contamination from a former quarry, inadequate roads and services, and pressure on schools and utilities. The respondent advocates sustainable, affordable housing solutions, greater transparency in site assessments, and planning decisions that prioritise environmental protection, food security, community interests and long-term public benefit over developer profits.
I am a resident of Birtles Road and strongly object to further development of Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside.
I ask that the following matters be incorporated into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
My objection is not to providing homes. Cheshire East needs more housing, particularly genuinely affordable homes for local people. My objection is to sacrificing Green Belt, productive farmland, wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive land when better, more sustainable alternatives exist.
The Local Plan should be far more ambitious about regenerating brownfield and neglected urban land, bringing empty and derelict property back into use, increasing appropriate housing densities near infrastructure and developing new forms of affordable accommodation, rather than allowing Macclesfield to continue spreading outwards.
Green Belt and the outward sprawl of Macclesfield
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond form a clear boundary between the built-up area and open countryside, helping contain Macclesfield and prevent further outward sprawl.
Development around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane would breach that established edge and create finger or ribbon development into the countryside. Once development crosses that boundary, developing the next field becomes progressively easier. That is why Green Belt protection matters.
Previous assessments identified land in this area as unsuitable or constrained because of Green Belt, highways, landscape and access. Nothing fundamental has changed. The roads have not widened, the fields still flood, the ecological value remains, the farmland is still productive and infrastructure has not gained unlimited capacity.
If Cheshire East now wishes to reach a different conclusion, it must clearly explain what has changed and provide the evidence supporting it.
I also object to the term “grey belt”. It is misleading. Bureaucratic reclassification does not make countryside degraded or expendable. Land does not lose its ecological, agricultural, landscape or community value because planning terminology changes.
Brownfield, derelict property and empty homes should come first
It is extremely difficult to justify building on productive Green Belt farmland while houses, buildings and development sites elsewhere remain empty, derelict or underused.
Cheshire East should identify and exhaust opportunities involving:
• brownfield land;
• derelict buildings and sites;
• long-term empty properties;
• town-centre regeneration;
• underused commercial land;
• existing safeguarded development land;
• redevelopment near railway stations, shops, services and employment;
• appropriate increases in urban housing density.
Where strategically important sites or buildings have been left derelict or unused for years, compulsory purchase should be considered where necessary.
We should also end land banking, where developable land is acquired and then simply left unused.
Using underused land while releasing productive countryside makes no environmental, social or long-term economic sense. Developer profitability cannot be allowed to determine which land Cheshire East sacrifices. Greenfield development may be easier and more profitable than regenerating an awkward brownfield site, but that does not make it better planning.
Productive farmland and food security
Some of the land in question is not unused land.
It is actively farmed.
The United Kingdom already faces serious questions about food supply and climate change. Why, then, are we contemplating permanently covering viable farmland with houses and roads when less damaging alternatives exist?
Agricultural land is finite. Once excavated, roaded and built over, it will not return to food production.
The Local Plan should explicitly recognise productive agricultural land and long-term food security when determining where development should occur.
Wildlife and ecological damage
The ecological implications of development here are particularly serious.
The area supports rare and protected wildlife, including great crested newts, natterjack toads, owls and polecats, alongside other species dependent on ponds, hedgerows, mature trees, fields and undisturbed habitat.
Wildlife moves between these habitats. Fragmenting those networks can be as destructive as building directly on them. Established habitat and wildlife corridors cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.
Once they are gone, they are gone.
Tree preservation should also be an absolute priority, alongside protection of mature hedgerows, ponds and established wildlife corridors.
I am deeply concerned that development on this scale could become an environmental disaster. Developer profits must not take precedence over irreplaceable wildlife and habitat. Unscrupulous developers have already ripped out hedges they were told to protect and opted to pay fines. You cannot put a price on nature.
Flooding and drainage
The drainage characteristics of this land are already evident. Fields are prone to water running towards the road, which can freeze in cold weather and create hazardous conditions.
Large numbers of houses, roads, driveways and other impermeable surfaces would fundamentally alter how water moves through and off the land. This is not a technical detail to be left for a developer to “engineer out” after allocation.
Any consideration of this land must include proper seasonal hydrological and drainage assessment, including cumulative effects across the wider area. This is especially important as climate change is likely to bring heavier rainfall and longer hot, dry periods.
Land-use decisions must remain sustainable under future conditions, not merely those of today.
The former sand quarry, asbestos and groundwater
There is an additional environmental concern which must be taken seriously.
Asbestos was dumped in the former sand quarry.
Nearby development could involve excavation, vibration, earth movement and prolonged heavy-haulage traffic. The Council should investigate whether this could affect asbestos containment or other contaminants and create pathways into surrounding land or groundwater.
This is particularly important because there are boreholes at the bottom of the field.
Given pressure on water infrastructure and the likelihood of longer, hotter and drier summers, groundwater and boreholes could become increasingly important for local resilience or emergency supply. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to risk compromising a potential future water resource without fully understanding the hydrogeology and contamination risks.
The Local Plan should require independent investigation of the former quarry, asbestos, groundwater movement, boreholes and the consequences of excavation, piling, construction traffic and changes in surface and groundwater drainage before this area is considered for development.
Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads with constrained sections, limited passing places and no continuous pavement. They already serve residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, cars and agricultural vehicles.
They are not naturally suited to major housing expansion.
The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required vehicular access from Chelford Road and prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M.
If Cheshire East now proposes that substantially more development can be supported by this network, residents are entitled to ask:
What has changed?
The physical road network has not changed sufficiently to remove the previous safety concerns.
All proposed development around Greenside, Whirley Road, Birtles Road and Sandy Lane must be assessed cumulatively. Assessing sites individually risks understating the eventual traffic burden.
The cumulative effect on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road, Broken Cross and surrounding junctions must be established before allocation. The Council should also demonstrate that any proposed solution does not depend on destroying hedgerows, mature trees and rural verges to widen roads.
Schools and infrastructure
Existing infrastructure is already under pressure, and the local school is oversubscribed.
Additional housing would also affect GP services, roads, drainage, utilities, water infrastructure, public transport and other services. Housing cannot sensibly be planned on the assumption that infrastructure will follow later.
For every major growth option, Cheshire East should identify:
what infrastructure is required;
where it will go;
how much it will cost;
who will pay; and
when it will be provided.
If these questions cannot be answered before allocation, the site is not ready or suitable.
We need affordable accommodation, not endless conventional housing estates
We need to become more creative about housing. The debate is too often reduced to how many conventional houses can fit on how many acres.
We should ask what forms of accommodation people actually need.
There is considerable potential for attractive, affordable community living for younger people, workers, apprentices, first-time buyers and those seeking a more connected way of life.
Well-designed developments could include affordable flats and apartments with:
• shared gardens;
• generous private balconies;
• gyms;
• laundry facilities;
• shared work or office space;
• community rooms;
• growing and gardening areas;
• secure cycle storage;
• highly energy-efficient construction;
• shared ownership and other affordable ownership options.
This could provide some of the social and practical benefits of halls of residence, but for ordinary adult life. Similar models could be developed for older people, women's communities and other groups.
We should also build genuinely affordable family homes for local people: well-designed, energy-efficient homes built to last and enhance rather than diminish the local environment.
Build up, not endlessly out
Many locations near railway stations, employment, shops and existing infrastructure are more suitable for higher-density housing.
We should consider well-designed two-to-five-storey apartment developments as well as flats with generous balconies, landscaping and communal green space.
Higher density need not mean poor living conditions. Done well, it can provide spacious, attractive, energy-efficient homes using far less land per household than sprawling estates.
Build up in appropriate places before building out into the countryside.
This would provide significant numbers of homes while using considerably less land, which is surely the aim of genuinely sustainable planning.
Planning for local people, not developer shareholders
Land is finite and should be central to the Local Plan.
Developers and shareholders have a commercial focus which should not dictate communities’ physical future simply because they control particular parcels of land.
Local residents will live with the consequences for many decades. Planning policy must serve the long-term public interest rather than facilitate whichever sites offer the greatest commercial return.
Developer profit should also never outweigh wildlife, environmental protection, food production, water security, community infrastructure and long-term quality of life.
Previous assessments cannot simply be disregarded
Some of this land has previously been rejected or considered unsuitable because of Green Belt, highway, landscape, access and other constraints. Those assessments remain relevant.
The Council should publish previous assessments alongside:
• new site submissions;
• updated site assessments;
• Green Belt assessments;
• ecological evidence;
• transport evidence;
• drainage evidence;
• contamination evidence;
• infrastructure assessments; and
• the scoring methodology used to compare sites.
Where the Council reaches a different conclusion, it should identify the earlier concern and explain what new evidence means it no longer applies.
Reassessing the same land under a new Local Plan does not remove its physical constraints.
If it was previously unsuitable because of its physical and environmental characteristics, Cheshire East must explain why it has suddenly become suitable now.
A better vision for Cheshire East
The new Local Plan should adopt a clear hierarchy:
Regenerate before expanding.
Use brownfield before Green Belt and define grey belt appropriately so it is not misleading.
Bring empty and derelict property back into use before sacrificing farmland.
Build at sensible higher densities near infrastructure before sprawling into the countryside.
Protect productive farmland.
Protect trees and established wildlife habitat.
Protect groundwater and future water resources.
Provide genuinely affordable homes and accommodation for local people.
Design communities around how people will live in the future rather than reproducing conventional housing estates.
There will always be another developer willing to argue for building on the next field but once farmland, Green Belt, mature habitat and wildlife corridors are destroyed it can't be replaced.
For these reasons, development of the Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside should not form part of Cheshire East's preferred strategy.
There are better places to build and better ways to provide the homes and accommodation Cheshire East needs.
I ask the Council to incorporate these matters fully into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Local Plan, and to give residents a meaningful opportunity to examine and comment on the evidence before preferred site allocations are determined.
I would also like Cheshire East to publish a clear account of how consultation responses have influenced the emerging Local Plan.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Housing mix
Representation ID: 5231
Received: 30/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Wilson
The respondent argues that housing policy should move beyond large, conventional housing estates and focus on the types of homes people actually need. They support innovative, affordable community living models for young people, workers, apprentices, first-time buyers and older residents. Suggested developments include energy-efficient flats and apartments with shared amenities such as gardens, workspaces, community rooms, cycle storage and growing areas, alongside shared ownership and other affordable housing options. Such schemes could foster stronger communities while making better use of land. The respondent also calls for genuinely affordable, high-quality family homes that are sustainable, durable and designed to enhance, rather than harm, the local environment.
I am a resident of Birtles Road and strongly object to further development of Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside.
I ask that the following matters be incorporated into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
My objection is not to providing homes. Cheshire East needs more housing, particularly genuinely affordable homes for local people. My objection is to sacrificing Green Belt, productive farmland, wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive land when better, more sustainable alternatives exist.
The Local Plan should be far more ambitious about regenerating brownfield and neglected urban land, bringing empty and derelict property back into use, increasing appropriate housing densities near infrastructure and developing new forms of affordable accommodation, rather than allowing Macclesfield to continue spreading outwards.
Green Belt and the outward sprawl of Macclesfield
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond form a clear boundary between the built-up area and open countryside, helping contain Macclesfield and prevent further outward sprawl.
Development around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane would breach that established edge and create finger or ribbon development into the countryside. Once development crosses that boundary, developing the next field becomes progressively easier. That is why Green Belt protection matters.
Previous assessments identified land in this area as unsuitable or constrained because of Green Belt, highways, landscape and access. Nothing fundamental has changed. The roads have not widened, the fields still flood, the ecological value remains, the farmland is still productive and infrastructure has not gained unlimited capacity.
If Cheshire East now wishes to reach a different conclusion, it must clearly explain what has changed and provide the evidence supporting it.
I also object to the term “grey belt”. It is misleading. Bureaucratic reclassification does not make countryside degraded or expendable. Land does not lose its ecological, agricultural, landscape or community value because planning terminology changes.
Brownfield, derelict property and empty homes should come first
It is extremely difficult to justify building on productive Green Belt farmland while houses, buildings and development sites elsewhere remain empty, derelict or underused.
Cheshire East should identify and exhaust opportunities involving:
• brownfield land;
• derelict buildings and sites;
• long-term empty properties;
• town-centre regeneration;
• underused commercial land;
• existing safeguarded development land;
• redevelopment near railway stations, shops, services and employment;
• appropriate increases in urban housing density.
Where strategically important sites or buildings have been left derelict or unused for years, compulsory purchase should be considered where necessary.
We should also end land banking, where developable land is acquired and then simply left unused.
Using underused land while releasing productive countryside makes no environmental, social or long-term economic sense. Developer profitability cannot be allowed to determine which land Cheshire East sacrifices. Greenfield development may be easier and more profitable than regenerating an awkward brownfield site, but that does not make it better planning.
Productive farmland and food security
Some of the land in question is not unused land.
It is actively farmed.
The United Kingdom already faces serious questions about food supply and climate change. Why, then, are we contemplating permanently covering viable farmland with houses and roads when less damaging alternatives exist?
Agricultural land is finite. Once excavated, roaded and built over, it will not return to food production.
The Local Plan should explicitly recognise productive agricultural land and long-term food security when determining where development should occur.
Wildlife and ecological damage
The ecological implications of development here are particularly serious.
The area supports rare and protected wildlife, including great crested newts, natterjack toads, owls and polecats, alongside other species dependent on ponds, hedgerows, mature trees, fields and undisturbed habitat.
Wildlife moves between these habitats. Fragmenting those networks can be as destructive as building directly on them. Established habitat and wildlife corridors cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.
Once they are gone, they are gone.
Tree preservation should also be an absolute priority, alongside protection of mature hedgerows, ponds and established wildlife corridors.
I am deeply concerned that development on this scale could become an environmental disaster. Developer profits must not take precedence over irreplaceable wildlife and habitat. Unscrupulous developers have already ripped out hedges they were told to protect and opted to pay fines. You cannot put a price on nature.
Flooding and drainage
The drainage characteristics of this land are already evident. Fields are prone to water running towards the road, which can freeze in cold weather and create hazardous conditions.
Large numbers of houses, roads, driveways and other impermeable surfaces would fundamentally alter how water moves through and off the land. This is not a technical detail to be left for a developer to “engineer out” after allocation.
Any consideration of this land must include proper seasonal hydrological and drainage assessment, including cumulative effects across the wider area. This is especially important as climate change is likely to bring heavier rainfall and longer hot, dry periods.
Land-use decisions must remain sustainable under future conditions, not merely those of today.
The former sand quarry, asbestos and groundwater
There is an additional environmental concern which must be taken seriously.
Asbestos was dumped in the former sand quarry.
Nearby development could involve excavation, vibration, earth movement and prolonged heavy-haulage traffic. The Council should investigate whether this could affect asbestos containment or other contaminants and create pathways into surrounding land or groundwater.
This is particularly important because there are boreholes at the bottom of the field.
Given pressure on water infrastructure and the likelihood of longer, hotter and drier summers, groundwater and boreholes could become increasingly important for local resilience or emergency supply. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to risk compromising a potential future water resource without fully understanding the hydrogeology and contamination risks.
The Local Plan should require independent investigation of the former quarry, asbestos, groundwater movement, boreholes and the consequences of excavation, piling, construction traffic and changes in surface and groundwater drainage before this area is considered for development.
Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads with constrained sections, limited passing places and no continuous pavement. They already serve residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, cars and agricultural vehicles.
They are not naturally suited to major housing expansion.
The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required vehicular access from Chelford Road and prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M.
If Cheshire East now proposes that substantially more development can be supported by this network, residents are entitled to ask:
What has changed?
The physical road network has not changed sufficiently to remove the previous safety concerns.
All proposed development around Greenside, Whirley Road, Birtles Road and Sandy Lane must be assessed cumulatively. Assessing sites individually risks understating the eventual traffic burden.
The cumulative effect on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road, Broken Cross and surrounding junctions must be established before allocation. The Council should also demonstrate that any proposed solution does not depend on destroying hedgerows, mature trees and rural verges to widen roads.
Schools and infrastructure
Existing infrastructure is already under pressure, and the local school is oversubscribed.
Additional housing would also affect GP services, roads, drainage, utilities, water infrastructure, public transport and other services. Housing cannot sensibly be planned on the assumption that infrastructure will follow later.
For every major growth option, Cheshire East should identify:
what infrastructure is required;
where it will go;
how much it will cost;
who will pay; and
when it will be provided.
If these questions cannot be answered before allocation, the site is not ready or suitable.
We need affordable accommodation, not endless conventional housing estates
We need to become more creative about housing. The debate is too often reduced to how many conventional houses can fit on how many acres.
We should ask what forms of accommodation people actually need.
There is considerable potential for attractive, affordable community living for younger people, workers, apprentices, first-time buyers and those seeking a more connected way of life.
Well-designed developments could include affordable flats and apartments with:
• shared gardens;
• generous private balconies;
• gyms;
• laundry facilities;
• shared work or office space;
• community rooms;
• growing and gardening areas;
• secure cycle storage;
• highly energy-efficient construction;
• shared ownership and other affordable ownership options.
This could provide some of the social and practical benefits of halls of residence, but for ordinary adult life. Similar models could be developed for older people, women's communities and other groups.
We should also build genuinely affordable family homes for local people: well-designed, energy-efficient homes built to last and enhance rather than diminish the local environment.
Build up, not endlessly out
Many locations near railway stations, employment, shops and existing infrastructure are more suitable for higher-density housing.
We should consider well-designed two-to-five-storey apartment developments as well as flats with generous balconies, landscaping and communal green space.
Higher density need not mean poor living conditions. Done well, it can provide spacious, attractive, energy-efficient homes using far less land per household than sprawling estates.
Build up in appropriate places before building out into the countryside.
This would provide significant numbers of homes while using considerably less land, which is surely the aim of genuinely sustainable planning.
Planning for local people, not developer shareholders
Land is finite and should be central to the Local Plan.
Developers and shareholders have a commercial focus which should not dictate communities’ physical future simply because they control particular parcels of land.
Local residents will live with the consequences for many decades. Planning policy must serve the long-term public interest rather than facilitate whichever sites offer the greatest commercial return.
Developer profit should also never outweigh wildlife, environmental protection, food production, water security, community infrastructure and long-term quality of life.
Previous assessments cannot simply be disregarded
Some of this land has previously been rejected or considered unsuitable because of Green Belt, highway, landscape, access and other constraints. Those assessments remain relevant.
The Council should publish previous assessments alongside:
• new site submissions;
• updated site assessments;
• Green Belt assessments;
• ecological evidence;
• transport evidence;
• drainage evidence;
• contamination evidence;
• infrastructure assessments; and
• the scoring methodology used to compare sites.
Where the Council reaches a different conclusion, it should identify the earlier concern and explain what new evidence means it no longer applies.
Reassessing the same land under a new Local Plan does not remove its physical constraints.
If it was previously unsuitable because of its physical and environmental characteristics, Cheshire East must explain why it has suddenly become suitable now.
A better vision for Cheshire East
The new Local Plan should adopt a clear hierarchy:
Regenerate before expanding.
Use brownfield before Green Belt and define grey belt appropriately so it is not misleading.
Bring empty and derelict property back into use before sacrificing farmland.
Build at sensible higher densities near infrastructure before sprawling into the countryside.
Protect productive farmland.
Protect trees and established wildlife habitat.
Protect groundwater and future water resources.
Provide genuinely affordable homes and accommodation for local people.
Design communities around how people will live in the future rather than reproducing conventional housing estates.
There will always be another developer willing to argue for building on the next field but once farmland, Green Belt, mature habitat and wildlife corridors are destroyed it can't be replaced.
For these reasons, development of the Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside should not form part of Cheshire East's preferred strategy.
There are better places to build and better ways to provide the homes and accommodation Cheshire East needs.
I ask the Council to incorporate these matters fully into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Local Plan, and to give residents a meaningful opportunity to examine and comment on the evidence before preferred site allocations are determined.
I would also like Cheshire East to publish a clear account of how consultation responses have influenced the emerging Local Plan.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Other housing policies
Representation ID: 5232
Received: 30/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Wilson
Build up, not endlessly out
Many locations near railway stations, employment, shops and existing infrastructure are more suitable for higher-density housing.
We should consider well-designed two-to-five-storey apartment developments as well as flats with generous balconies, landscaping and communal green space.
Higher density need not mean poor living conditions. Done well, it can provide spacious, attractive, energy-efficient homes using far less land per household than sprawling estates.
I am a resident of Birtles Road and strongly object to further development of Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside.
I ask that the following matters be incorporated into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
My objection is not to providing homes. Cheshire East needs more housing, particularly genuinely affordable homes for local people. My objection is to sacrificing Green Belt, productive farmland, wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive land when better, more sustainable alternatives exist.
The Local Plan should be far more ambitious about regenerating brownfield and neglected urban land, bringing empty and derelict property back into use, increasing appropriate housing densities near infrastructure and developing new forms of affordable accommodation, rather than allowing Macclesfield to continue spreading outwards.
Green Belt and the outward sprawl of Macclesfield
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond form a clear boundary between the built-up area and open countryside, helping contain Macclesfield and prevent further outward sprawl.
Development around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane would breach that established edge and create finger or ribbon development into the countryside. Once development crosses that boundary, developing the next field becomes progressively easier. That is why Green Belt protection matters.
Previous assessments identified land in this area as unsuitable or constrained because of Green Belt, highways, landscape and access. Nothing fundamental has changed. The roads have not widened, the fields still flood, the ecological value remains, the farmland is still productive and infrastructure has not gained unlimited capacity.
If Cheshire East now wishes to reach a different conclusion, it must clearly explain what has changed and provide the evidence supporting it.
I also object to the term “grey belt”. It is misleading. Bureaucratic reclassification does not make countryside degraded or expendable. Land does not lose its ecological, agricultural, landscape or community value because planning terminology changes.
Brownfield, derelict property and empty homes should come first
It is extremely difficult to justify building on productive Green Belt farmland while houses, buildings and development sites elsewhere remain empty, derelict or underused.
Cheshire East should identify and exhaust opportunities involving:
• brownfield land;
• derelict buildings and sites;
• long-term empty properties;
• town-centre regeneration;
• underused commercial land;
• existing safeguarded development land;
• redevelopment near railway stations, shops, services and employment;
• appropriate increases in urban housing density.
Where strategically important sites or buildings have been left derelict or unused for years, compulsory purchase should be considered where necessary.
We should also end land banking, where developable land is acquired and then simply left unused.
Using underused land while releasing productive countryside makes no environmental, social or long-term economic sense. Developer profitability cannot be allowed to determine which land Cheshire East sacrifices. Greenfield development may be easier and more profitable than regenerating an awkward brownfield site, but that does not make it better planning.
Productive farmland and food security
Some of the land in question is not unused land.
It is actively farmed.
The United Kingdom already faces serious questions about food supply and climate change. Why, then, are we contemplating permanently covering viable farmland with houses and roads when less damaging alternatives exist?
Agricultural land is finite. Once excavated, roaded and built over, it will not return to food production.
The Local Plan should explicitly recognise productive agricultural land and long-term food security when determining where development should occur.
Wildlife and ecological damage
The ecological implications of development here are particularly serious.
The area supports rare and protected wildlife, including great crested newts, natterjack toads, owls and polecats, alongside other species dependent on ponds, hedgerows, mature trees, fields and undisturbed habitat.
Wildlife moves between these habitats. Fragmenting those networks can be as destructive as building directly on them. Established habitat and wildlife corridors cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.
Once they are gone, they are gone.
Tree preservation should also be an absolute priority, alongside protection of mature hedgerows, ponds and established wildlife corridors.
I am deeply concerned that development on this scale could become an environmental disaster. Developer profits must not take precedence over irreplaceable wildlife and habitat. Unscrupulous developers have already ripped out hedges they were told to protect and opted to pay fines. You cannot put a price on nature.
Flooding and drainage
The drainage characteristics of this land are already evident. Fields are prone to water running towards the road, which can freeze in cold weather and create hazardous conditions.
Large numbers of houses, roads, driveways and other impermeable surfaces would fundamentally alter how water moves through and off the land. This is not a technical detail to be left for a developer to “engineer out” after allocation.
Any consideration of this land must include proper seasonal hydrological and drainage assessment, including cumulative effects across the wider area. This is especially important as climate change is likely to bring heavier rainfall and longer hot, dry periods.
Land-use decisions must remain sustainable under future conditions, not merely those of today.
The former sand quarry, asbestos and groundwater
There is an additional environmental concern which must be taken seriously.
Asbestos was dumped in the former sand quarry.
Nearby development could involve excavation, vibration, earth movement and prolonged heavy-haulage traffic. The Council should investigate whether this could affect asbestos containment or other contaminants and create pathways into surrounding land or groundwater.
This is particularly important because there are boreholes at the bottom of the field.
Given pressure on water infrastructure and the likelihood of longer, hotter and drier summers, groundwater and boreholes could become increasingly important for local resilience or emergency supply. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to risk compromising a potential future water resource without fully understanding the hydrogeology and contamination risks.
The Local Plan should require independent investigation of the former quarry, asbestos, groundwater movement, boreholes and the consequences of excavation, piling, construction traffic and changes in surface and groundwater drainage before this area is considered for development.
Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads with constrained sections, limited passing places and no continuous pavement. They already serve residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, cars and agricultural vehicles.
They are not naturally suited to major housing expansion.
The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required vehicular access from Chelford Road and prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M.
If Cheshire East now proposes that substantially more development can be supported by this network, residents are entitled to ask:
What has changed?
The physical road network has not changed sufficiently to remove the previous safety concerns.
All proposed development around Greenside, Whirley Road, Birtles Road and Sandy Lane must be assessed cumulatively. Assessing sites individually risks understating the eventual traffic burden.
The cumulative effect on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road, Broken Cross and surrounding junctions must be established before allocation. The Council should also demonstrate that any proposed solution does not depend on destroying hedgerows, mature trees and rural verges to widen roads.
Schools and infrastructure
Existing infrastructure is already under pressure, and the local school is oversubscribed.
Additional housing would also affect GP services, roads, drainage, utilities, water infrastructure, public transport and other services. Housing cannot sensibly be planned on the assumption that infrastructure will follow later.
For every major growth option, Cheshire East should identify:
what infrastructure is required;
where it will go;
how much it will cost;
who will pay; and
when it will be provided.
If these questions cannot be answered before allocation, the site is not ready or suitable.
We need affordable accommodation, not endless conventional housing estates
We need to become more creative about housing. The debate is too often reduced to how many conventional houses can fit on how many acres.
We should ask what forms of accommodation people actually need.
There is considerable potential for attractive, affordable community living for younger people, workers, apprentices, first-time buyers and those seeking a more connected way of life.
Well-designed developments could include affordable flats and apartments with:
• shared gardens;
• generous private balconies;
• gyms;
• laundry facilities;
• shared work or office space;
• community rooms;
• growing and gardening areas;
• secure cycle storage;
• highly energy-efficient construction;
• shared ownership and other affordable ownership options.
This could provide some of the social and practical benefits of halls of residence, but for ordinary adult life. Similar models could be developed for older people, women's communities and other groups.
We should also build genuinely affordable family homes for local people: well-designed, energy-efficient homes built to last and enhance rather than diminish the local environment.
Build up, not endlessly out
Many locations near railway stations, employment, shops and existing infrastructure are more suitable for higher-density housing.
We should consider well-designed two-to-five-storey apartment developments as well as flats with generous balconies, landscaping and communal green space.
Higher density need not mean poor living conditions. Done well, it can provide spacious, attractive, energy-efficient homes using far less land per household than sprawling estates.
Build up in appropriate places before building out into the countryside.
This would provide significant numbers of homes while using considerably less land, which is surely the aim of genuinely sustainable planning.
Planning for local people, not developer shareholders
Land is finite and should be central to the Local Plan.
Developers and shareholders have a commercial focus which should not dictate communities’ physical future simply because they control particular parcels of land.
Local residents will live with the consequences for many decades. Planning policy must serve the long-term public interest rather than facilitate whichever sites offer the greatest commercial return.
Developer profit should also never outweigh wildlife, environmental protection, food production, water security, community infrastructure and long-term quality of life.
Previous assessments cannot simply be disregarded
Some of this land has previously been rejected or considered unsuitable because of Green Belt, highway, landscape, access and other constraints. Those assessments remain relevant.
The Council should publish previous assessments alongside:
• new site submissions;
• updated site assessments;
• Green Belt assessments;
• ecological evidence;
• transport evidence;
• drainage evidence;
• contamination evidence;
• infrastructure assessments; and
• the scoring methodology used to compare sites.
Where the Council reaches a different conclusion, it should identify the earlier concern and explain what new evidence means it no longer applies.
Reassessing the same land under a new Local Plan does not remove its physical constraints.
If it was previously unsuitable because of its physical and environmental characteristics, Cheshire East must explain why it has suddenly become suitable now.
A better vision for Cheshire East
The new Local Plan should adopt a clear hierarchy:
Regenerate before expanding.
Use brownfield before Green Belt and define grey belt appropriately so it is not misleading.
Bring empty and derelict property back into use before sacrificing farmland.
Build at sensible higher densities near infrastructure before sprawling into the countryside.
Protect productive farmland.
Protect trees and established wildlife habitat.
Protect groundwater and future water resources.
Provide genuinely affordable homes and accommodation for local people.
Design communities around how people will live in the future rather than reproducing conventional housing estates.
There will always be another developer willing to argue for building on the next field but once farmland, Green Belt, mature habitat and wildlife corridors are destroyed it can't be replaced.
For these reasons, development of the Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside should not form part of Cheshire East's preferred strategy.
There are better places to build and better ways to provide the homes and accommodation Cheshire East needs.
I ask the Council to incorporate these matters fully into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Local Plan, and to give residents a meaningful opportunity to examine and comment on the evidence before preferred site allocations are determined.
I would also like Cheshire East to publish a clear account of how consultation responses have influenced the emerging Local Plan.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Creating a vision and objectives
Representation ID: 5233
Received: 30/08/2026
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Wilson
A better vision for Cheshire East
The new Local Plan should adopt a clear hierarchy:
Regenerate before expanding.
Use brownfield before Green Belt and define grey belt appropriately so it is not misleading.
Bring empty and derelict property back into use before sacrificing farmland.
Build at sensible higher densities near infrastructure before sprawling into the countryside.
Protect productive farmland.
Protect trees and established wildlife habitat.
Protect groundwater and future water resources.
Provide genuinely affordable homes and accommodation for local people.
Design communities around how people will live in the future rather than reproducing conventional housing estates.
I am a resident of Birtles Road and strongly object to further development of Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside.
I ask that the following matters be incorporated into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
My objection is not to providing homes. Cheshire East needs more housing, particularly genuinely affordable homes for local people. My objection is to sacrificing Green Belt, productive farmland, wildlife habitat and environmentally sensitive land when better, more sustainable alternatives exist.
The Local Plan should be far more ambitious about regenerating brownfield and neglected urban land, bringing empty and derelict property back into use, increasing appropriate housing densities near infrastructure and developing new forms of affordable accommodation, rather than allowing Macclesfield to continue spreading outwards.
Green Belt and the outward sprawl of Macclesfield
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond form a clear boundary between the built-up area and open countryside, helping contain Macclesfield and prevent further outward sprawl.
Development around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane would breach that established edge and create finger or ribbon development into the countryside. Once development crosses that boundary, developing the next field becomes progressively easier. That is why Green Belt protection matters.
Previous assessments identified land in this area as unsuitable or constrained because of Green Belt, highways, landscape and access. Nothing fundamental has changed. The roads have not widened, the fields still flood, the ecological value remains, the farmland is still productive and infrastructure has not gained unlimited capacity.
If Cheshire East now wishes to reach a different conclusion, it must clearly explain what has changed and provide the evidence supporting it.
I also object to the term “grey belt”. It is misleading. Bureaucratic reclassification does not make countryside degraded or expendable. Land does not lose its ecological, agricultural, landscape or community value because planning terminology changes.
Brownfield, derelict property and empty homes should come first
It is extremely difficult to justify building on productive Green Belt farmland while houses, buildings and development sites elsewhere remain empty, derelict or underused.
Cheshire East should identify and exhaust opportunities involving:
• brownfield land;
• derelict buildings and sites;
• long-term empty properties;
• town-centre regeneration;
• underused commercial land;
• existing safeguarded development land;
• redevelopment near railway stations, shops, services and employment;
• appropriate increases in urban housing density.
Where strategically important sites or buildings have been left derelict or unused for years, compulsory purchase should be considered where necessary.
We should also end land banking, where developable land is acquired and then simply left unused.
Using underused land while releasing productive countryside makes no environmental, social or long-term economic sense. Developer profitability cannot be allowed to determine which land Cheshire East sacrifices. Greenfield development may be easier and more profitable than regenerating an awkward brownfield site, but that does not make it better planning.
Productive farmland and food security
Some of the land in question is not unused land.
It is actively farmed.
The United Kingdom already faces serious questions about food supply and climate change. Why, then, are we contemplating permanently covering viable farmland with houses and roads when less damaging alternatives exist?
Agricultural land is finite. Once excavated, roaded and built over, it will not return to food production.
The Local Plan should explicitly recognise productive agricultural land and long-term food security when determining where development should occur.
Wildlife and ecological damage
The ecological implications of development here are particularly serious.
The area supports rare and protected wildlife, including great crested newts, natterjack toads, owls and polecats, alongside other species dependent on ponds, hedgerows, mature trees, fields and undisturbed habitat.
Wildlife moves between these habitats. Fragmenting those networks can be as destructive as building directly on them. Established habitat and wildlife corridors cannot simply be recreated elsewhere.
Once they are gone, they are gone.
Tree preservation should also be an absolute priority, alongside protection of mature hedgerows, ponds and established wildlife corridors.
I am deeply concerned that development on this scale could become an environmental disaster. Developer profits must not take precedence over irreplaceable wildlife and habitat. Unscrupulous developers have already ripped out hedges they were told to protect and opted to pay fines. You cannot put a price on nature.
Flooding and drainage
The drainage characteristics of this land are already evident. Fields are prone to water running towards the road, which can freeze in cold weather and create hazardous conditions.
Large numbers of houses, roads, driveways and other impermeable surfaces would fundamentally alter how water moves through and off the land. This is not a technical detail to be left for a developer to “engineer out” after allocation.
Any consideration of this land must include proper seasonal hydrological and drainage assessment, including cumulative effects across the wider area. This is especially important as climate change is likely to bring heavier rainfall and longer hot, dry periods.
Land-use decisions must remain sustainable under future conditions, not merely those of today.
The former sand quarry, asbestos and groundwater
There is an additional environmental concern which must be taken seriously.
Asbestos was dumped in the former sand quarry.
Nearby development could involve excavation, vibration, earth movement and prolonged heavy-haulage traffic. The Council should investigate whether this could affect asbestos containment or other contaminants and create pathways into surrounding land or groundwater.
This is particularly important because there are boreholes at the bottom of the field.
Given pressure on water infrastructure and the likelihood of longer, hotter and drier summers, groundwater and boreholes could become increasingly important for local resilience or emergency supply. It would be extraordinarily short-sighted to risk compromising a potential future water resource without fully understanding the hydrogeology and contamination risks.
The Local Plan should require independent investigation of the former quarry, asbestos, groundwater movement, boreholes and the consequences of excavation, piling, construction traffic and changes in surface and groundwater drainage before this area is considered for development.
Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads with constrained sections, limited passing places and no continuous pavement. They already serve residents, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, cars and agricultural vehicles.
They are not naturally suited to major housing expansion.
The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required vehicular access from Chelford Road and prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M.
If Cheshire East now proposes that substantially more development can be supported by this network, residents are entitled to ask:
What has changed?
The physical road network has not changed sufficiently to remove the previous safety concerns.
All proposed development around Greenside, Whirley Road, Birtles Road and Sandy Lane must be assessed cumulatively. Assessing sites individually risks understating the eventual traffic burden.
The cumulative effect on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road, Broken Cross and surrounding junctions must be established before allocation. The Council should also demonstrate that any proposed solution does not depend on destroying hedgerows, mature trees and rural verges to widen roads.
Schools and infrastructure
Existing infrastructure is already under pressure, and the local school is oversubscribed.
Additional housing would also affect GP services, roads, drainage, utilities, water infrastructure, public transport and other services. Housing cannot sensibly be planned on the assumption that infrastructure will follow later.
For every major growth option, Cheshire East should identify:
what infrastructure is required;
where it will go;
how much it will cost;
who will pay; and
when it will be provided.
If these questions cannot be answered before allocation, the site is not ready or suitable.
We need affordable accommodation, not endless conventional housing estates
We need to become more creative about housing. The debate is too often reduced to how many conventional houses can fit on how many acres.
We should ask what forms of accommodation people actually need.
There is considerable potential for attractive, affordable community living for younger people, workers, apprentices, first-time buyers and those seeking a more connected way of life.
Well-designed developments could include affordable flats and apartments with:
• shared gardens;
• generous private balconies;
• gyms;
• laundry facilities;
• shared work or office space;
• community rooms;
• growing and gardening areas;
• secure cycle storage;
• highly energy-efficient construction;
• shared ownership and other affordable ownership options.
This could provide some of the social and practical benefits of halls of residence, but for ordinary adult life. Similar models could be developed for older people, women's communities and other groups.
We should also build genuinely affordable family homes for local people: well-designed, energy-efficient homes built to last and enhance rather than diminish the local environment.
Build up, not endlessly out
Many locations near railway stations, employment, shops and existing infrastructure are more suitable for higher-density housing.
We should consider well-designed two-to-five-storey apartment developments as well as flats with generous balconies, landscaping and communal green space.
Higher density need not mean poor living conditions. Done well, it can provide spacious, attractive, energy-efficient homes using far less land per household than sprawling estates.
Build up in appropriate places before building out into the countryside.
This would provide significant numbers of homes while using considerably less land, which is surely the aim of genuinely sustainable planning.
Planning for local people, not developer shareholders
Land is finite and should be central to the Local Plan.
Developers and shareholders have a commercial focus which should not dictate communities’ physical future simply because they control particular parcels of land.
Local residents will live with the consequences for many decades. Planning policy must serve the long-term public interest rather than facilitate whichever sites offer the greatest commercial return.
Developer profit should also never outweigh wildlife, environmental protection, food production, water security, community infrastructure and long-term quality of life.
Previous assessments cannot simply be disregarded
Some of this land has previously been rejected or considered unsuitable because of Green Belt, highway, landscape, access and other constraints. Those assessments remain relevant.
The Council should publish previous assessments alongside:
• new site submissions;
• updated site assessments;
• Green Belt assessments;
• ecological evidence;
• transport evidence;
• drainage evidence;
• contamination evidence;
• infrastructure assessments; and
• the scoring methodology used to compare sites.
Where the Council reaches a different conclusion, it should identify the earlier concern and explain what new evidence means it no longer applies.
Reassessing the same land under a new Local Plan does not remove its physical constraints.
If it was previously unsuitable because of its physical and environmental characteristics, Cheshire East must explain why it has suddenly become suitable now.
A better vision for Cheshire East
The new Local Plan should adopt a clear hierarchy:
Regenerate before expanding.
Use brownfield before Green Belt and define grey belt appropriately so it is not misleading.
Bring empty and derelict property back into use before sacrificing farmland.
Build at sensible higher densities near infrastructure before sprawling into the countryside.
Protect productive farmland.
Protect trees and established wildlife habitat.
Protect groundwater and future water resources.
Provide genuinely affordable homes and accommodation for local people.
Design communities around how people will live in the future rather than reproducing conventional housing estates.
There will always be another developer willing to argue for building on the next field but once farmland, Green Belt, mature habitat and wildlife corridors are destroyed it can't be replaced.
For these reasons, development of the Green Belt and actively farmed land around Birtles Road, Whirley Road, Sandy Lane and Greenside should not form part of Cheshire East's preferred strategy.
There are better places to build and better ways to provide the homes and accommodation Cheshire East needs.
I ask the Council to incorporate these matters fully into the scope, vision, objectives and evidence base of the new Local Plan, and to give residents a meaningful opportunity to examine and comment on the evidence before preferred site allocations are determined.
I would also like Cheshire East to publish a clear account of how consultation responses have influenced the emerging Local Plan.
