Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to formally object to the potential identification of the Green Belt land adjoining Blakelow Road and Buxton Old Road as a site for residential development as part of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I appreciate that the submission of this land through the Council's call for sites process does not currently represent a planning application or mean that the land has been allocated for development. However, I believe it is important that strong objections are recorded at this early stage so that the Council fully understands the importance of retaining this land as Green Belt.
I strongly request that this land remains protected and is not identified or allocated for residential development in the new Local Plan.
1. The Green Belt should be protected from unnecessary development
The fundamental purpose of Green Belt land is to prevent inappropriate urban expansion and maintain the separation between built-up areas and the open countryside.
The land in question provides an important open and undeveloped edge to Macclesfield. Allowing residential development here would represent a significant encroachment of the built environment into the countryside and would permanently alter the character of this part of Macclesfield.
Once developed, this land would effectively be lost as open countryside permanently. The decision should therefore not be based simply on whether housing could physically be accommodated on the site, but on whether there is a compelling planning justification for sacrificing this particular area of Green Belt.
There is no justification for treating Green Belt land as an easy or convenient source of additional housing land when alternative locations should be properly examined first.
2. Brownfield and previously developed land should take priority
Before considering the release of Green Belt land, Cheshire East Council should demonstrate that it has exhausted reasonable opportunities for development on suitable brownfield, previously developed and under-utilised land.
I strongly support the provision of new housing where it is appropriately located and supported by the necessary infrastructure. However, housing requirements should not automatically result in the loss of Green Belt land where more sustainable alternatives may exist.
The Council should provide clear evidence demonstrating:
• the total capacity of suitable brownfield and previously developed land;
• the opportunities for regeneration within existing settlements;
• whether vacant and under-utilised land can accommodate additional housing;
• whether existing urban areas can accommodate greater levels of development without releasing Green Belt; and
• why this particular Green Belt site is considered necessary when alternative sites have been properly assessed.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires authorities considering Green Belt boundary changes to examine other reasonable options for meeting identified development needs, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield and under-utilised land.
3. Significant landscape and visual impact
The proposed development would have a substantial and permanent visual impact on the surrounding landscape.
The existing open land provides an important visual transition between the built-up area of Macclesfield and the surrounding countryside. Replacing this open landscape with houses, roads, lighting, driveways, fencing and associated infrastructure would fundamentally change the character of the area.
The visual impact would not be limited to the immediate site. The development would introduce a significant new built form into an area which currently provides an important sense of openness.
The elevated and open nature of parts of the land also means that residential development could be particularly prominent when viewed from surrounding areas.
The Council should therefore undertake a proper landscape and visual assessment before considering this land for allocation.
4. Loss of Green Belt openness
Residential development is fundamentally different from the existing open use of the land.
A housing estate would introduce buildings, roads, parked vehicles, lighting, gardens, boundary treatments and associated infrastructure. This would result in a permanent and substantial loss of openness.
National planning policy states that substantial weight should be given to harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.
The Council should therefore not regard the land simply as an undeveloped area that could potentially accommodate housing. Its openness is itself an important planning asset.
5. Urban expansion and loss of the settlement boundary
I am particularly concerned that development of this site would encourage further outward expansion of Macclesfield.
Once the existing Green Belt boundary is breached, there is a significant risk that further adjoining areas will subsequently be considered suitable for development. This can result in incremental loss of countryside and progressively move the settlement edge further into the surrounding landscape.
The purpose of the Green Belt should be to provide a long-term and durable boundary to urban development, rather than land that can be released whenever additional housing capacity is required.
6. Infrastructure and sustainability
Any decision to consider this site for housing must also take full account of the infrastructure required to support the additional population.
This should include, but not be limited to:
• highway capacity and traffic generation;
• pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;
• public transport provision;
• schools and education capacity, pussbank school is the only local primary school;
• GP and healthcare provision;
• drainage and surface-water management;
• sewerage capacity;
• electricity and other utilities;
• local recreational facilities; and
• the cumulative impact of development in the wider Macclesfield area.
It is not sufficient for a site to be technically capable of accommodating houses. A genuinely sustainable development must be capable of creating a well-connected community without placing unacceptable pressure on existing infrastructure.
7. Environmental and ecological value
The land should also be properly assessed for its environmental and ecological value before any decision is made about its future.
Open Green Belt land contributes considerably more than simply providing space for development. It can provide habitat, support biodiversity, assist natural drainage, contribute to climate resilience and provide an important connection between the built environment and the wider countryside.
These benefits should be properly valued when comparing this site with alternative locations for housing.
8. The principle of exceptional circumstances
I recognise that national planning policy does allow Green Belt boundaries to be changed in certain circumstances. However, this should not be interpreted as meaning that Green Belt land should be released simply because additional housing is required.
The National Planning Policy Framework states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified through the preparation or updating of plans. It also requires the authority to demonstrate that it has examined other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs.
At this stage, I do not believe that the necessary justification has been demonstrated for this particular site.
Conclusion
I therefore strongly object to the potential allocation of the Green Belt land adjoining Blakelow Road and Buxton Old Road for residential development.
I ask Cheshire East Council to:
1. Retain this land within the Green Belt;
2. Not identify or allocate it for residential development in the new Local Plan;
3. Prioritise suitable brownfield, previously developed and under-utilised land before considering Green Belt release;
4. Fully assess the landscape, ecological, environmental and recreational value of the site;
5. Properly assess the existing and cumulative infrastructure constraints associated with development in this area; and
6. Require clear and compelling evidence of exceptional circumstances before any Green Belt boundary alteration is contemplated.
This is not an objection to the principle of providing much-needed housing. It is an objection to the loss of an important area of Green Belt when the Council should first demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been properly considered.
The Green Belt around Macclesfield provides a valuable long-term safeguard against urban sprawl and the gradual loss of the countryside surrounding the town. Once this land is developed, its openness and landscape character cannot realistically be restored.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to retain the land as Green Belt and exclude it from consideration as a residential development site within the new Local Plan.

I am writing to formally object to the potential identification of the Green Belt land adjoining Blakelow Road and Buxton Old Road as a site for residential development as part of the new Cheshire East Local Plan.
I appreciate that the submission of this land through the Council's call for sites process does not currently represent a planning application or mean that the land has been allocated for development. However, I believe it is important that strong objections are recorded at this early stage so that the Council fully understands the importance of retaining this land as Green Belt.
I strongly request that this land remains protected and is not identified or allocated for residential development in the new Local Plan.
1. The Green Belt should be protected from unnecessary development
The fundamental purpose of Green Belt land is to prevent inappropriate urban expansion and maintain the separation between built-up areas and the open countryside.
The land in question provides an important open and undeveloped edge to Macclesfield. Allowing residential development here would represent a significant encroachment of the built environment into the countryside and would permanently alter the character of this part of Macclesfield.
Once developed, this land would effectively be lost as open countryside permanently. The decision should therefore not be based simply on whether housing could physically be accommodated on the site, but on whether there is a compelling planning justification for sacrificing this particular area of Green Belt.
There is no justification for treating Green Belt land as an easy or convenient source of additional housing land when alternative locations should be properly examined first.
2. Brownfield and previously developed land should take priority
Before considering the release of Green Belt land, Cheshire East Council should demonstrate that it has exhausted reasonable opportunities for development on suitable brownfield, previously developed and under-utilised land.
I strongly support the provision of new housing where it is appropriately located and supported by the necessary infrastructure. However, housing requirements should not automatically result in the loss of Green Belt land where more sustainable alternatives may exist.
The Council should provide clear evidence demonstrating:
• the total capacity of suitable brownfield and previously developed land;
• the opportunities for regeneration within existing settlements;
• whether vacant and under-utilised land can accommodate additional housing;
• whether existing urban areas can accommodate greater levels of development without releasing Green Belt; and
• why this particular Green Belt site is considered necessary when alternative sites have been properly assessed.
The National Planning Policy Framework requires authorities considering Green Belt boundary changes to examine other reasonable options for meeting identified development needs, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield and under-utilised land.
3. Significant landscape and visual impact
The proposed development would have a substantial and permanent visual impact on the surrounding landscape.
The existing open land provides an important visual transition between the built-up area of Macclesfield and the surrounding countryside. Replacing this open landscape with houses, roads, lighting, driveways, fencing and associated infrastructure would fundamentally change the character of the area.
The visual impact would not be limited to the immediate site. The development would introduce a significant new built form into an area which currently provides an important sense of openness.
The elevated and open nature of parts of the land also means that residential development could be particularly prominent when viewed from surrounding areas.
The Council should therefore undertake a proper landscape and visual assessment before considering this land for allocation.
4. Loss of Green Belt openness
Residential development is fundamentally different from the existing open use of the land.
A housing estate would introduce buildings, roads, parked vehicles, lighting, gardens, boundary treatments and associated infrastructure. This would result in a permanent and substantial loss of openness.
National planning policy states that substantial weight should be given to harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.
The Council should therefore not regard the land simply as an undeveloped area that could potentially accommodate housing. Its openness is itself an important planning asset.
5. Urban expansion and loss of the settlement boundary
I am particularly concerned that development of this site would encourage further outward expansion of Macclesfield.
Once the existing Green Belt boundary is breached, there is a significant risk that further adjoining areas will subsequently be considered suitable for development. This can result in incremental loss of countryside and progressively move the settlement edge further into the surrounding landscape.
The purpose of the Green Belt should be to provide a long-term and durable boundary to urban development, rather than land that can be released whenever additional housing capacity is required.
6. Infrastructure and sustainability
Any decision to consider this site for housing must also take full account of the infrastructure required to support the additional population.
This should include, but not be limited to:
• highway capacity and traffic generation;
• pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;
• public transport provision;
• schools and education capacity, pussbank school is the only local primary school;
• GP and healthcare provision;
• drainage and surface-water management;
• sewerage capacity;
• electricity and other utilities;
• local recreational facilities; and
• the cumulative impact of development in the wider Macclesfield area.
It is not sufficient for a site to be technically capable of accommodating houses. A genuinely sustainable development must be capable of creating a well-connected community without placing unacceptable pressure on existing infrastructure.
7. Environmental and ecological value
The land should also be properly assessed for its environmental and ecological value before any decision is made about its future.
Open Green Belt land contributes considerably more than simply providing space for development. It can provide habitat, support biodiversity, assist natural drainage, contribute to climate resilience and provide an important connection between the built environment and the wider countryside.
These benefits should be properly valued when comparing this site with alternative locations for housing.
8. The principle of exceptional circumstances
I recognise that national planning policy does allow Green Belt boundaries to be changed in certain circumstances. However, this should not be interpreted as meaning that Green Belt land should be released simply because additional housing is required.
The National Planning Policy Framework states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified through the preparation or updating of plans. It also requires the authority to demonstrate that it has examined other reasonable options for meeting its identified development needs.
At this stage, I do not believe that the necessary justification has been demonstrated for this particular site.
Conclusion
I therefore strongly object to the potential allocation of the Green Belt land adjoining Blakelow Road and Buxton Old Road for residential development.
I ask Cheshire East Council to:
1. Retain this land within the Green Belt;
2. Not identify or allocate it for residential development in the new Local Plan;
3. Prioritise suitable brownfield, previously developed and under-utilised land before considering Green Belt release;
4. Fully assess the landscape, ecological, environmental and recreational value of the site;
5. Properly assess the existing and cumulative infrastructure constraints associated with development in this area; and
6. Require clear and compelling evidence of exceptional circumstances before any Green Belt boundary alteration is contemplated.
This is not an objection to the principle of providing much-needed housing. It is an objection to the loss of an important area of Green Belt when the Council should first demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been properly considered.
The Green Belt around Macclesfield provides a valuable long-term safeguard against urban sprawl and the gradual loss of the countryside surrounding the town. Once this land is developed, its openness and landscape character cannot realistically be restored.
For these reasons, I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to retain the land as Green Belt and exclude it from consideration as a residential development site within the new Local Plan.