Local plan scoping consultation

Re: Response from Byrons Lane, Macclesfield, to the new local scoping consultation: intractable highway constraints for submitted sites and concern over surface water.

Thank you for publishing the scoping consultation and for inviting feedback.

I would like to submit formal feedback relating to the green field site directly on Byrons Lane and the large expanse of farmland between Bullocks Lane and the Macclesfield-Leek (London) Road/A523.

I strongly urge the Council to exclude these sites from future strategic housing allocations due to severe, unresolvable highway constraints. In addition, for the field on Byrons Lane, I’m concerned surface water flood risk would be created (‘negative baseline shift’) if it were developed.

Substandard highways network: The sole route into Macclesfield from the southern end of Byrons Lane funnels traffic through a dense layout of terraced housing. This bottleneck has no alternative to permanent on-street parking and navigates two 90-degree blind bends. There is a further blind bend opposite 110 Byrons Lane.
These hazards are well recognised as this local road network has already absorbed very significant traffic increases from previous major residential developments in Langley and on Gunco Lane. It is also affected by the Gawend Lane development, drawing in large volumes of commuter traffic from the south looking to avoid the A523 as it heads into Macclesfield. In short, the network is already at (over)capacity—it is frequently backed up at the Byrons Lane-London Road and Gunco Lane junctions. Gunco Lane is already prone to gridlock from further unavoidable on-street parking on the tight descent towards Byrons Lane with traffic mounting the pavement to escape. Any additional development would escalate a critical risk to highway safety and would directly violate the principles of policy INF3.
As we have seen this summer with fire risk in Macclesfield Forest any additional residential vehicle load would risk completely blocking access for emergency service vehicles (especially fire engines) and create an unacceptable public safety hazard.

As I understand it, the Council applies strict baseline filters to reject site submissions that rely on highly constrained, historical access routes that cannot be physically widened or altered. As a consequence, these submitted sites should be rejected in the Council’s plans.

Surface Water Flood Risk
Secondarily, I would like to raise concern over potential flooding if development were to proceed to the field on Byrons Lane. I realise that lower lying properties on and adjacent to Byrons Lane (Tarvin Close) are currently regarded as very low flood risk. However, the lower half of the field holds pooled water in winter implying it is a critical retention area for water running off the upper part of the field and hill to the north. I would regard the current flooding risk to housing being entirely dependent on the field remaining undeveloped in line with the Environment Agency’s policy ENV16. It is of note that parts of Tarvin Close are structurally below the level of the field.