Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Jemma Whittle search
New search
New search
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Respondent: Jemma Whittle
Representation Summary:
The respondents object to substantial development around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including sites CFS26 590, 460 and 557. They are particularly concerned about cumulative impacts on traffic, education, healthcare, utilities, drainage, flooding and wildlife. They request a transparent, evidence-based assessment of development sustainability, infrastructure capacity and local employment growth, including comparison with brownfield and urban alternatives. They also seek early consideration of ecological constraints and habitats, including protected species. The respondents request publication of site assessment criteria, scoring and supporting evidence, alongside clarification of how any necessary infrastructure improvements would be funded and delivered.
Full text:
Dear Strategic Planning Team
We are responding to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation. We strongly object to the potential allocation for substantial development of land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557.
Our main concerns are that if the above closely located sites are developed together, there will be a highly detrimental cumulative impact on our area which will negatively effect local infrastructure including traffic, schools, healthcare, utilities and wildlife.
We understand that Cheshire East needs to plan for additional Housing, however we strongly feel that a rigorous and transparent assessment of potential sites is critical before decisions are made and sites are selected.
We feel that it is imperative that the Council are able to demonstrate (through objective evidence) that selected development sites are sustainable and that the employment, infrastructure and environmental capacity exists to support the proposed site/s.
Prior to allocating major housing sites, we feel strongly that Cheshire East need to prepare an area-wide detailed cumulative impact assessment with analysis of both current and future capacity for: schools, healthcare (GP surgeries, Macclesfield Hospital- including A&E and outpatient services), transport (roads and junctions, buses and local transport), refuse collection and recycling, electricity/grid, drinking water supply, wastewater treatment and surface-water drainage and flood risk to the area. Where additional infrastructure is required, it needs to be clarified who will fund it and when it will be provided.
Specific questions we would like Cheshire East to address include:
• Why are the above locations more sustainable than local brownfield or urban alternatives?
• What local employment growth is forecast to align with the growth in housing?
• How will the Council assess the cumulative impact of developments? How will they assess current and future capacity for education, healthcare, transport, utilities etc
• Will ecological constraints be assessed as part of the site selection, including the interconnected habitat of bats, badgers, breeding birds/ barn owls, great crested newts amongst the fields, hedgerows, ponds, and mature trees?
• Will there be transparent site assessment and selection criteria?
• Will the Council publish this evidence to demonstrate how they have reached decisions – eg showing the criteria and scoring they have used to accept or reject sites?
Please could you acknowledge receipt of this email and confirm that our objection and requests have been formally recorded. Many thanks.
Kind regards,
Andrew and Jemma Whittle
[REDACTED]
For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our
help guide.
