Full text:
I am concerned that development could take away the rural character, farmland and stables, cause congestion and heavily impact the local ecosystem, and I would like the plan not to be built. I would like the following matters to be included in the scope of the new Local Plan, its vision, objectives and evidence base.
Green Belt and countryside
I note that the Green Belt boundary around Fowey Close in Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road, and that the fields beyond help contain the town and prevent spread into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance indicates open land can still contribute to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt, which is a real concern with several sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when assessing land: prioritise 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 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 with constrained sections, limited passing spaces and no continuous pavement, already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders, agricultural vehicles and cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant, and Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road while specifically prohibiting access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out future development, but it shows that the council recognises 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 proposed sites around Greenside together, as assessing each site separately could 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 resolved later.
Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the impact on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting of places such as Roewood Farm. The area contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together rather than addressed separately after a site is chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be accounted for before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.
Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should specify what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered, and consider whether road improvements would require removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.
Please incorporate these points in defining the scope of the Local Plan and the forthcoming consultation stages. I would also appreciate a transparent explanation of how consultation responses have influenced the plan. This response has been prepared to reflect my own views.
