Local plan scoping consultation

To the Strategic Planning Team,
I am writing to submit my formal response to the New Local Plan Scoping Consultation. I wish to comment specifically on how the plan’s overarching strategy must manage spatial growth, protect historic environments, and preserve statutory Green Belt boundaries into the 2040s.
The council's new scoping framework must establish a robust strategy that filters out highly sensitive and conflicting site submissions at this early stage. The current developer site submissions located on the land south of Alderley Road (SK10 4RH) and the fields near Macclesfield Rugby Club perfectly illustrate where the new plan's methodology must enforce strict protection, based on the following specific planning policy conflicts:
1. Failure to Prevent Coalescence (Conflict with NPPF Chapter 13 & CELPS Policy PG 3)
National planning policy dictates that a core purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent neighbouring towns from merging (NPPF Paragraph 138). Under Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS) Policy PG 3, Green Belt boundaries are strictly protected to maintain settlement identity. Developing the land south of Alderley Road would cause immediate visual and physical coalescence between Macclesfield and the historic village of Prestbury. It would create a continuous, highly damaging ribbon development along Sandy Lane, Priory Lane, and Summerfield Road, permanently erasing the strategic gap separating our communities.
2. Irreparable Harm to Significant Heritage Assets (Conflict with CELPS Policy SE 7 & SADPD Policy HER 1)
Under CELPS Policy SE 7 and SADPD Policy HER 1, the council has a statutory duty to protect and preserve the character and setting of designated heritage assets. This Green Belt land forms the immediate, historic rural setting for two Grade II listed landmarks: Fallibroome Farmhouse and Yew Tree Cottage. High-density modern housing allocations would completely subsume these buildings, isolating them from their open historical context. No amount of internal layout changes or peripheral screening can mitigate the destruction of this setting, which also compromises the integrity of the wider approach to the Prestbury Conservation Area.
3. Loss of Protected Landscape & Active Countryside (Conflict with SADPD Policy ENV 3)
The fields in question fall directly within the Bollin Valley Local Landscape Designation (LLD), protected under SADPD Policy ENV 3. This policy states that development must not harm the distinct character and quality of the designated landscape. The fact that these fields are actively used for sheep grazing proves they fulfill a vital, functioning Green Belt role by keeping the Bollin Valley landscape open. The scoping strategy must prevent developers from misclassifying active livestock land as low-value or "Grey Belt" simply to bypass landscape protections.
4. Unsustainable Settlement Hierarchy (Conflict with CELPS Policy MP 1 & PG 1)
CELPS Policy MP 1 and PG 1 commit the council to a sustainable "town centre first" growth pattern to meet climate emergency goals. Allocating highly peripheral, car-dependent edge-of-town Green Belt fields completely contradicts this strategy. Major housing here would force unsustainable car reliance, severely worsening the existing highway bottlenecks at the narrow junctions of Sandy Lane and Priory Lane. Growth should instead be focused on urban regeneration within Macclesfield town centre.
I urge the Council to apply these policy criteria rigidly to ensure that these and similar unsuitable sites across this strategic buffer corridor are completely removed from the Local Plan process at this scoping stage.
Yours faithfully,
[Redacted]