Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for Alastair Hargreaves search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 5956
Received: 01/09/2026
Respondent: Alastair Hargreaves
The respondent objects to further large-scale development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory unless robust evidence demonstrates that infrastructure and environmental capacity can accommodate growth. Concerns are raised about existing pressures on healthcare services, school places, traffic congestion, drainage, flooding and sewerage infrastructure. The respondent also seeks protection for Green Belt land, open countryside, wildlife habitats, settlement separation and the distinctive character of Prestbury. They advocate a brownfield-first approach and request independent, cumulative assessments of transport, education, healthcare, drainage, ecology and infrastructure. The respondent argues that infrastructure should be provided before, rather than after, development occurs.
FORMAL OBJECTION TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN BROKEN CROSS, PRESTBURY AND UPTON PRIORY
To: Cheshire East Council – Planning and Local Plan Team
Re: Cheshire East Local Plan – Formal Representation / Objection to Further Development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory
Date: 31 August 2026
FORMAL OBJECTION
I wish to make a formal objection to further large-scale development in and around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory and request that the area is not identified or allocated for further development within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan unless and until it can be demonstrated, through robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure and environmental capacity exist.
The existing communities are already under considerable pressure. Further development in this location would place additional demands on healthcare, schools, roads, drainage, sewerage and other essential infrastructure, while also threatening Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and the distinctive character and separation of the settlements.
Cheshire East Council's own Local Plan consultation material recognises that the distribution of development must take account of infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, ecology, open spaces, Green Belt and the character and function of settlements.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the following objections carefully.
1. HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITAL CAPACITY
Healthcare services in the area are already under significant pressure.
Local residents experience lengthy waits for appointments, investigations and test results. I have personally experienced a wait of more than four months for tests and results and have had to consider or seek private medical care because of delays.
This is not simply an individual inconvenience. It demonstrates the importance of considering whether local healthcare infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support additional population growth.
Any proposal for substantial additional housing should therefore be supported by clear evidence from the relevant NHS bodies demonstrating that:
• local GP and primary healthcare capacity is sufficient;
• local hospital capacity is sufficient;
• waiting times and existing demand have been properly considered;
• additional population arising from development can be accommodated without further deterioration in access to healthcare; and
• appropriate healthcare infrastructure will be delivered alongside, rather than after, development.
Development should not proceed on the assumption that already-stretched healthcare services can simply absorb additional demand.
2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
There are approximately five schools in the immediate vicinity, and local residents already experience significant pressure on school places.
I understand that children living in Prestbury are being allocated school places outside the immediate local area because of the lack of available capacity.
This raises serious questions about whether the area has the infrastructure necessary to support substantial additional housing.
The Council should obtain and publish robust evidence of current and projected school capacity before considering any further development allocation. This should include the cumulative impact of existing developments and any other proposed developments in the area.
3. SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this area, particularly during school drop-off and collection periods and during normal morning and evening rush hours.
School traffic combines with commuter traffic to create congestion and gridlock on local roads.
The situation is particularly concerning around Alderley Road, which is relatively narrow and is not, in my view, suitable for absorbing substantial additional traffic without significant improvements.
I also understand that a very substantial proportion of traffic associated with The King's School originates outside the immediate Macclesfield area. This creates an additional traffic burden that must be considered as part of any cumulative transport assessment.
The Council should therefore require a comprehensive and independent transport assessment which considers:
• existing traffic levels;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• traffic generated by existing developments;
• traffic from all proposed developments cumulatively;
• highway safety;
• pedestrian safety;
• cycling infrastructure;
• emergency vehicle access;
• the capacity and width of Alderley Road and surrounding roads; and
• realistic peak-time traffic conditions rather than theoretical average conditions.
It would be unacceptable to assess each development proposal in isolation when residents experience the combined impact of existing and proposed development.
4. DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Drainage is a particularly serious concern in this area.
The drainage associated with the rugby club has historically been problematic, and Priory Lane is regularly affected by flooding. Existing drainage infrastructure appears to be under pressure during periods of heavy rainfall.
There are also properties at the end of Priory Lane which, to my understanding, remain reliant on septic tanks because mains sewerage is not available.
This raises fundamental questions about whether the existing drainage and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate additional development.
The Council should require detailed, independently verified evidence addressing:
• existing drainage capacity;
• existing flood locations;
• surface-water flows;
• groundwater conditions;
• sewer capacity;
• wastewater treatment capacity;
• septic-tank arrangements;
• climate-change impacts on rainfall and flooding;
• cumulative impacts from all proposed development; and
• the ability of sustainable drainage systems to function effectively on the proposed sites.
Development should not be permitted where it would increase flood risk to existing homes, roads or neighbouring land.
Importantly, drainage should be considered cumulatively. The fact that an individual development might propose mitigation does not demonstrate that the wider drainage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate multiple developments.
5. PROTECTION OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
The Green Belt and remaining open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory are important community and environmental assets.
The Council's current Local Plan consultation confirms that Green Belt has an important role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting countryside and preventing neighbouring settlements from merging. It also states that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed where the relevant exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere.
The Council should therefore:
• protect Green Belt land from unnecessary development;
• prioritise brownfield and previously developed land;
• protect open spaces and countryside;
• prevent further outward expansion of settlements;
• maintain meaningful separation between settlements;
• protect the rural setting of Prestbury; and
• ensure that any proposed Green Belt release is supported by compelling, transparent and independently tested evidence.
The Council's previous assessment work has recognised the importance of Green Belt land around Prestbury, including its role in preventing the merging of Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Further development risks gradually eroding the open land which currently provides an important buffer between settlements.
6. PROTECTION OF VILLAGE CHARACTER AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
7. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY
The land around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory supports a wide range of wildlife.
Residents regularly see or have observed wildlife including:
• bats;
• owls;
• falcons and other birds of prey;
• badgers;
• hedgehogs; and
• other mammals, birds and insects.
These areas provide more than isolated pockets of habitat. Hedgerows, mature trees, fields, woodland and open land can form interconnected wildlife corridors.
Development could result in:
• habitat loss;
• fragmentation of wildlife corridors;
• disturbance from construction;
• loss of mature trees and hedgerows;
• increased lighting;
• increased traffic;
• disturbance to nocturnal species; and
• long-term loss of biodiversity.
A proper ecological assessment should therefore be undertaken before any land is considered suitable for allocation.
The Council should specifically require assessment of protected species, habitat connectivity and cumulative biodiversity impacts rather than relying solely on a site-by-site assessment.
8. OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
High-voltage electricity pylons and overhead power infrastructure cross the wider area.
Their presence is an important consideration when assessing whether land is appropriate for residential development, particularly in relation to site layout, visual impact, safety, electromagnetic-field exposure and the appropriate separation of residential properties from electricity infrastructure.
I request that the Council obtains appropriate technical advice from the relevant electricity network operator and other competent authorities before considering any allocation in proximity to these installations.
Any assessment should be evidence-based and should consider the latest available scientific and regulatory guidance rather than assuming that the presence of the infrastructure has no relevance to residential development.
9. CUMULATIVE IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative impact of development.
The roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems, sewerage infrastructure and open spaces are already serving an established community.
The impact of one development cannot properly be assessed without considering:
• existing housing;
• previously approved developments;
• current planning applications;
• proposed Local Plan allocations;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• healthcare demand;
• drainage and flooding;
• wastewater infrastructure;
• ecological impacts; and
• the combined loss of open countryside.
The Council's emerging Local Plan specifically recognises infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints as factors that should inform where development is located.
I therefore request that cumulative infrastructure capacity assessments are undertaken before any further development is allocated in this area.
10. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
It is not sufficient to approve additional housing and then attempt to resolve infrastructure problems afterwards.
Before any major development is allocated, there should be clear evidence that:
1. adequate school places can be provided;
2. healthcare capacity is sufficient;
3. highway capacity is sufficient;
4. safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists;
5. drainage and sewerage capacity is adequate;
6. flood risk will not be increased;
7. emergency services can access the area;
8. wildlife and ecological networks can be protected;
9. Green Belt and settlement separation will not be unacceptably harmed; and
10. necessary infrastructure can be delivered at the same time as the development.
FORMAL REQUEST
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Does not allocate further land for major development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory where existing infrastructure cannot demonstrate sufficient capacity.
2. Protects the Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and settlement boundaries.
3. Requires independent and cumulative assessments of highways, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewerage, flooding and ecology before considering any further development.
4. Gives priority to brownfield and previously developed land rather than releasing additional greenfield and Green Belt land.
5. Ensures that infrastructure capacity is demonstrated before development is permitted or allocated.
6. Gives proper weight to the existing character and rural setting of Prestbury and the importance of maintaining separation between settlements.
7. Requires the cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed developments to be assessed rather than considering individual developments in isolation.
8. Ensures that residents are given meaningful opportunities to comment on any future site allocations affecting Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to further large-scale development in this area unless the Council can demonstrate, with robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure exists and that the environmental and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
The existing pressures on healthcare, schools, roads and drainage should not be ignored or treated as matters that can be resolved after development has taken place.
The remaining open countryside and Green Belt around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory also have significant value in maintaining the character of the area, preventing settlement coalescence and providing habitat for wildlife.
The principle should be simple: development must be directed to locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity exist, rather than placing further pressure on an area that is already struggling to cope.
I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to register this as my formal objection and representation to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and to take these concerns into account when assessing future development sites in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Representation ID: 5957
Received: 01/09/2026
Respondent: Alastair Hargreaves
The respondent raises concerns that local infrastructure is already under significant strain and may be unable to support further development. They highlight pressures on GP services and hospitals, citing long waiting times and arguing that healthcare capacity should be demonstrated and expanded before housing growth occurs. Concerns are also raised about limited school places, with evidence requested on existing and future capacity. Traffic congestion, particularly on Alderley Road, is identified as a major issue requiring comprehensive cumulative transport assessments. In addition, the respondent points to flooding, drainage, sewerage, and wastewater constraints, arguing that detailed evidence is needed to ensure development does not worsen existing problems.
FORMAL OBJECTION TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN BROKEN CROSS, PRESTBURY AND UPTON PRIORY
To: Cheshire East Council – Planning and Local Plan Team
Re: Cheshire East Local Plan – Formal Representation / Objection to Further Development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory
Date: 31 August 2026
FORMAL OBJECTION
I wish to make a formal objection to further large-scale development in and around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory and request that the area is not identified or allocated for further development within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan unless and until it can be demonstrated, through robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure and environmental capacity exist.
The existing communities are already under considerable pressure. Further development in this location would place additional demands on healthcare, schools, roads, drainage, sewerage and other essential infrastructure, while also threatening Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and the distinctive character and separation of the settlements.
Cheshire East Council's own Local Plan consultation material recognises that the distribution of development must take account of infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, ecology, open spaces, Green Belt and the character and function of settlements.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the following objections carefully.
1. HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITAL CAPACITY
Healthcare services in the area are already under significant pressure.
Local residents experience lengthy waits for appointments, investigations and test results. I have personally experienced a wait of more than four months for tests and results and have had to consider or seek private medical care because of delays.
This is not simply an individual inconvenience. It demonstrates the importance of considering whether local healthcare infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support additional population growth.
Any proposal for substantial additional housing should therefore be supported by clear evidence from the relevant NHS bodies demonstrating that:
• local GP and primary healthcare capacity is sufficient;
• local hospital capacity is sufficient;
• waiting times and existing demand have been properly considered;
• additional population arising from development can be accommodated without further deterioration in access to healthcare; and
• appropriate healthcare infrastructure will be delivered alongside, rather than after, development.
Development should not proceed on the assumption that already-stretched healthcare services can simply absorb additional demand.
2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
There are approximately five schools in the immediate vicinity, and local residents already experience significant pressure on school places.
I understand that children living in Prestbury are being allocated school places outside the immediate local area because of the lack of available capacity.
This raises serious questions about whether the area has the infrastructure necessary to support substantial additional housing.
The Council should obtain and publish robust evidence of current and projected school capacity before considering any further development allocation. This should include the cumulative impact of existing developments and any other proposed developments in the area.
3. SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this area, particularly during school drop-off and collection periods and during normal morning and evening rush hours.
School traffic combines with commuter traffic to create congestion and gridlock on local roads.
The situation is particularly concerning around Alderley Road, which is relatively narrow and is not, in my view, suitable for absorbing substantial additional traffic without significant improvements.
I also understand that a very substantial proportion of traffic associated with The King's School originates outside the immediate Macclesfield area. This creates an additional traffic burden that must be considered as part of any cumulative transport assessment.
The Council should therefore require a comprehensive and independent transport assessment which considers:
• existing traffic levels;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• traffic generated by existing developments;
• traffic from all proposed developments cumulatively;
• highway safety;
• pedestrian safety;
• cycling infrastructure;
• emergency vehicle access;
• the capacity and width of Alderley Road and surrounding roads; and
• realistic peak-time traffic conditions rather than theoretical average conditions.
It would be unacceptable to assess each development proposal in isolation when residents experience the combined impact of existing and proposed development.
4. DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Drainage is a particularly serious concern in this area.
The drainage associated with the rugby club has historically been problematic, and Priory Lane is regularly affected by flooding. Existing drainage infrastructure appears to be under pressure during periods of heavy rainfall.
There are also properties at the end of Priory Lane which, to my understanding, remain reliant on septic tanks because mains sewerage is not available.
This raises fundamental questions about whether the existing drainage and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate additional development.
The Council should require detailed, independently verified evidence addressing:
• existing drainage capacity;
• existing flood locations;
• surface-water flows;
• groundwater conditions;
• sewer capacity;
• wastewater treatment capacity;
• septic-tank arrangements;
• climate-change impacts on rainfall and flooding;
• cumulative impacts from all proposed development; and
• the ability of sustainable drainage systems to function effectively on the proposed sites.
Development should not be permitted where it would increase flood risk to existing homes, roads or neighbouring land.
Importantly, drainage should be considered cumulatively. The fact that an individual development might propose mitigation does not demonstrate that the wider drainage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate multiple developments.
5. PROTECTION OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
The Green Belt and remaining open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory are important community and environmental assets.
The Council's current Local Plan consultation confirms that Green Belt has an important role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting countryside and preventing neighbouring settlements from merging. It also states that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed where the relevant exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere.
The Council should therefore:
• protect Green Belt land from unnecessary development;
• prioritise brownfield and previously developed land;
• protect open spaces and countryside;
• prevent further outward expansion of settlements;
• maintain meaningful separation between settlements;
• protect the rural setting of Prestbury; and
• ensure that any proposed Green Belt release is supported by compelling, transparent and independently tested evidence.
The Council's previous assessment work has recognised the importance of Green Belt land around Prestbury, including its role in preventing the merging of Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Further development risks gradually eroding the open land which currently provides an important buffer between settlements.
6. PROTECTION OF VILLAGE CHARACTER AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
7. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY
The land around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory supports a wide range of wildlife.
Residents regularly see or have observed wildlife including:
• bats;
• owls;
• falcons and other birds of prey;
• badgers;
• hedgehogs; and
• other mammals, birds and insects.
These areas provide more than isolated pockets of habitat. Hedgerows, mature trees, fields, woodland and open land can form interconnected wildlife corridors.
Development could result in:
• habitat loss;
• fragmentation of wildlife corridors;
• disturbance from construction;
• loss of mature trees and hedgerows;
• increased lighting;
• increased traffic;
• disturbance to nocturnal species; and
• long-term loss of biodiversity.
A proper ecological assessment should therefore be undertaken before any land is considered suitable for allocation.
The Council should specifically require assessment of protected species, habitat connectivity and cumulative biodiversity impacts rather than relying solely on a site-by-site assessment.
8. OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
High-voltage electricity pylons and overhead power infrastructure cross the wider area.
Their presence is an important consideration when assessing whether land is appropriate for residential development, particularly in relation to site layout, visual impact, safety, electromagnetic-field exposure and the appropriate separation of residential properties from electricity infrastructure.
I request that the Council obtains appropriate technical advice from the relevant electricity network operator and other competent authorities before considering any allocation in proximity to these installations.
Any assessment should be evidence-based and should consider the latest available scientific and regulatory guidance rather than assuming that the presence of the infrastructure has no relevance to residential development.
9. CUMULATIVE IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative impact of development.
The roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems, sewerage infrastructure and open spaces are already serving an established community.
The impact of one development cannot properly be assessed without considering:
• existing housing;
• previously approved developments;
• current planning applications;
• proposed Local Plan allocations;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• healthcare demand;
• drainage and flooding;
• wastewater infrastructure;
• ecological impacts; and
• the combined loss of open countryside.
The Council's emerging Local Plan specifically recognises infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints as factors that should inform where development is located.
I therefore request that cumulative infrastructure capacity assessments are undertaken before any further development is allocated in this area.
10. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
It is not sufficient to approve additional housing and then attempt to resolve infrastructure problems afterwards.
Before any major development is allocated, there should be clear evidence that:
1. adequate school places can be provided;
2. healthcare capacity is sufficient;
3. highway capacity is sufficient;
4. safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists;
5. drainage and sewerage capacity is adequate;
6. flood risk will not be increased;
7. emergency services can access the area;
8. wildlife and ecological networks can be protected;
9. Green Belt and settlement separation will not be unacceptably harmed; and
10. necessary infrastructure can be delivered at the same time as the development.
FORMAL REQUEST
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Does not allocate further land for major development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory where existing infrastructure cannot demonstrate sufficient capacity.
2. Protects the Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and settlement boundaries.
3. Requires independent and cumulative assessments of highways, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewerage, flooding and ecology before considering any further development.
4. Gives priority to brownfield and previously developed land rather than releasing additional greenfield and Green Belt land.
5. Ensures that infrastructure capacity is demonstrated before development is permitted or allocated.
6. Gives proper weight to the existing character and rural setting of Prestbury and the importance of maintaining separation between settlements.
7. Requires the cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed developments to be assessed rather than considering individual developments in isolation.
8. Ensures that residents are given meaningful opportunities to comment on any future site allocations affecting Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to further large-scale development in this area unless the Council can demonstrate, with robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure exists and that the environmental and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
The existing pressures on healthcare, schools, roads and drainage should not be ignored or treated as matters that can be resolved after development has taken place.
The remaining open countryside and Green Belt around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory also have significant value in maintaining the character of the area, preventing settlement coalescence and providing habitat for wildlife.
The principle should be simple: development must be directed to locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity exist, rather than placing further pressure on an area that is already struggling to cope.
I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to register this as my formal objection and representation to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and to take these concerns into account when assessing future development sites in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Green Belt
Representation ID: 5958
Received: 01/09/2026
Respondent: Alastair Hargreaves
The respondent emphasises the importance of protecting Green Belt land and open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross, and Upton Priory as valuable environmental and community assets. They note that Green Belt plays a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, safeguarding the countryside, and maintaining separation between settlements. The respondent argues that development needs should be met through brownfield and previously developed land before any Green Belt release is considered. They call for the protection of open spaces, the rural setting of Prestbury, and meaningful settlement separation. Any Green Belt release should be supported by compelling, transparent, and independently verified evidence demonstrating exceptional circumstances.
FORMAL OBJECTION TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN BROKEN CROSS, PRESTBURY AND UPTON PRIORY
To: Cheshire East Council – Planning and Local Plan Team
Re: Cheshire East Local Plan – Formal Representation / Objection to Further Development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory
Date: 31 August 2026
FORMAL OBJECTION
I wish to make a formal objection to further large-scale development in and around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory and request that the area is not identified or allocated for further development within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan unless and until it can be demonstrated, through robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure and environmental capacity exist.
The existing communities are already under considerable pressure. Further development in this location would place additional demands on healthcare, schools, roads, drainage, sewerage and other essential infrastructure, while also threatening Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and the distinctive character and separation of the settlements.
Cheshire East Council's own Local Plan consultation material recognises that the distribution of development must take account of infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, ecology, open spaces, Green Belt and the character and function of settlements.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the following objections carefully.
1. HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITAL CAPACITY
Healthcare services in the area are already under significant pressure.
Local residents experience lengthy waits for appointments, investigations and test results. I have personally experienced a wait of more than four months for tests and results and have had to consider or seek private medical care because of delays.
This is not simply an individual inconvenience. It demonstrates the importance of considering whether local healthcare infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support additional population growth.
Any proposal for substantial additional housing should therefore be supported by clear evidence from the relevant NHS bodies demonstrating that:
• local GP and primary healthcare capacity is sufficient;
• local hospital capacity is sufficient;
• waiting times and existing demand have been properly considered;
• additional population arising from development can be accommodated without further deterioration in access to healthcare; and
• appropriate healthcare infrastructure will be delivered alongside, rather than after, development.
Development should not proceed on the assumption that already-stretched healthcare services can simply absorb additional demand.
2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
There are approximately five schools in the immediate vicinity, and local residents already experience significant pressure on school places.
I understand that children living in Prestbury are being allocated school places outside the immediate local area because of the lack of available capacity.
This raises serious questions about whether the area has the infrastructure necessary to support substantial additional housing.
The Council should obtain and publish robust evidence of current and projected school capacity before considering any further development allocation. This should include the cumulative impact of existing developments and any other proposed developments in the area.
3. SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this area, particularly during school drop-off and collection periods and during normal morning and evening rush hours.
School traffic combines with commuter traffic to create congestion and gridlock on local roads.
The situation is particularly concerning around Alderley Road, which is relatively narrow and is not, in my view, suitable for absorbing substantial additional traffic without significant improvements.
I also understand that a very substantial proportion of traffic associated with The King's School originates outside the immediate Macclesfield area. This creates an additional traffic burden that must be considered as part of any cumulative transport assessment.
The Council should therefore require a comprehensive and independent transport assessment which considers:
• existing traffic levels;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• traffic generated by existing developments;
• traffic from all proposed developments cumulatively;
• highway safety;
• pedestrian safety;
• cycling infrastructure;
• emergency vehicle access;
• the capacity and width of Alderley Road and surrounding roads; and
• realistic peak-time traffic conditions rather than theoretical average conditions.
It would be unacceptable to assess each development proposal in isolation when residents experience the combined impact of existing and proposed development.
4. DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Drainage is a particularly serious concern in this area.
The drainage associated with the rugby club has historically been problematic, and Priory Lane is regularly affected by flooding. Existing drainage infrastructure appears to be under pressure during periods of heavy rainfall.
There are also properties at the end of Priory Lane which, to my understanding, remain reliant on septic tanks because mains sewerage is not available.
This raises fundamental questions about whether the existing drainage and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate additional development.
The Council should require detailed, independently verified evidence addressing:
• existing drainage capacity;
• existing flood locations;
• surface-water flows;
• groundwater conditions;
• sewer capacity;
• wastewater treatment capacity;
• septic-tank arrangements;
• climate-change impacts on rainfall and flooding;
• cumulative impacts from all proposed development; and
• the ability of sustainable drainage systems to function effectively on the proposed sites.
Development should not be permitted where it would increase flood risk to existing homes, roads or neighbouring land.
Importantly, drainage should be considered cumulatively. The fact that an individual development might propose mitigation does not demonstrate that the wider drainage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate multiple developments.
5. PROTECTION OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
The Green Belt and remaining open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory are important community and environmental assets.
The Council's current Local Plan consultation confirms that Green Belt has an important role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting countryside and preventing neighbouring settlements from merging. It also states that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed where the relevant exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere.
The Council should therefore:
• protect Green Belt land from unnecessary development;
• prioritise brownfield and previously developed land;
• protect open spaces and countryside;
• prevent further outward expansion of settlements;
• maintain meaningful separation between settlements;
• protect the rural setting of Prestbury; and
• ensure that any proposed Green Belt release is supported by compelling, transparent and independently tested evidence.
The Council's previous assessment work has recognised the importance of Green Belt land around Prestbury, including its role in preventing the merging of Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Further development risks gradually eroding the open land which currently provides an important buffer between settlements.
6. PROTECTION OF VILLAGE CHARACTER AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
7. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY
The land around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory supports a wide range of wildlife.
Residents regularly see or have observed wildlife including:
• bats;
• owls;
• falcons and other birds of prey;
• badgers;
• hedgehogs; and
• other mammals, birds and insects.
These areas provide more than isolated pockets of habitat. Hedgerows, mature trees, fields, woodland and open land can form interconnected wildlife corridors.
Development could result in:
• habitat loss;
• fragmentation of wildlife corridors;
• disturbance from construction;
• loss of mature trees and hedgerows;
• increased lighting;
• increased traffic;
• disturbance to nocturnal species; and
• long-term loss of biodiversity.
A proper ecological assessment should therefore be undertaken before any land is considered suitable for allocation.
The Council should specifically require assessment of protected species, habitat connectivity and cumulative biodiversity impacts rather than relying solely on a site-by-site assessment.
8. OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
High-voltage electricity pylons and overhead power infrastructure cross the wider area.
Their presence is an important consideration when assessing whether land is appropriate for residential development, particularly in relation to site layout, visual impact, safety, electromagnetic-field exposure and the appropriate separation of residential properties from electricity infrastructure.
I request that the Council obtains appropriate technical advice from the relevant electricity network operator and other competent authorities before considering any allocation in proximity to these installations.
Any assessment should be evidence-based and should consider the latest available scientific and regulatory guidance rather than assuming that the presence of the infrastructure has no relevance to residential development.
9. CUMULATIVE IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative impact of development.
The roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems, sewerage infrastructure and open spaces are already serving an established community.
The impact of one development cannot properly be assessed without considering:
• existing housing;
• previously approved developments;
• current planning applications;
• proposed Local Plan allocations;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• healthcare demand;
• drainage and flooding;
• wastewater infrastructure;
• ecological impacts; and
• the combined loss of open countryside.
The Council's emerging Local Plan specifically recognises infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints as factors that should inform where development is located.
I therefore request that cumulative infrastructure capacity assessments are undertaken before any further development is allocated in this area.
10. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
It is not sufficient to approve additional housing and then attempt to resolve infrastructure problems afterwards.
Before any major development is allocated, there should be clear evidence that:
1. adequate school places can be provided;
2. healthcare capacity is sufficient;
3. highway capacity is sufficient;
4. safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists;
5. drainage and sewerage capacity is adequate;
6. flood risk will not be increased;
7. emergency services can access the area;
8. wildlife and ecological networks can be protected;
9. Green Belt and settlement separation will not be unacceptably harmed; and
10. necessary infrastructure can be delivered at the same time as the development.
FORMAL REQUEST
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Does not allocate further land for major development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory where existing infrastructure cannot demonstrate sufficient capacity.
2. Protects the Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and settlement boundaries.
3. Requires independent and cumulative assessments of highways, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewerage, flooding and ecology before considering any further development.
4. Gives priority to brownfield and previously developed land rather than releasing additional greenfield and Green Belt land.
5. Ensures that infrastructure capacity is demonstrated before development is permitted or allocated.
6. Gives proper weight to the existing character and rural setting of Prestbury and the importance of maintaining separation between settlements.
7. Requires the cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed developments to be assessed rather than considering individual developments in isolation.
8. Ensures that residents are given meaningful opportunities to comment on any future site allocations affecting Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to further large-scale development in this area unless the Council can demonstrate, with robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure exists and that the environmental and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
The existing pressures on healthcare, schools, roads and drainage should not be ignored or treated as matters that can be resolved after development has taken place.
The remaining open countryside and Green Belt around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory also have significant value in maintaining the character of the area, preventing settlement coalescence and providing habitat for wildlife.
The principle should be simple: development must be directed to locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity exist, rather than placing further pressure on an area that is already struggling to cope.
I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to register this as my formal objection and representation to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and to take these concerns into account when assessing future development sites in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Development in settlements
Representation ID: 5959
Received: 01/09/2026
Respondent: Alastair Hargreaves
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
FORMAL OBJECTION TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN BROKEN CROSS, PRESTBURY AND UPTON PRIORY
To: Cheshire East Council – Planning and Local Plan Team
Re: Cheshire East Local Plan – Formal Representation / Objection to Further Development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory
Date: 31 August 2026
FORMAL OBJECTION
I wish to make a formal objection to further large-scale development in and around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory and request that the area is not identified or allocated for further development within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan unless and until it can be demonstrated, through robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure and environmental capacity exist.
The existing communities are already under considerable pressure. Further development in this location would place additional demands on healthcare, schools, roads, drainage, sewerage and other essential infrastructure, while also threatening Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and the distinctive character and separation of the settlements.
Cheshire East Council's own Local Plan consultation material recognises that the distribution of development must take account of infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, ecology, open spaces, Green Belt and the character and function of settlements.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the following objections carefully.
1. HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITAL CAPACITY
Healthcare services in the area are already under significant pressure.
Local residents experience lengthy waits for appointments, investigations and test results. I have personally experienced a wait of more than four months for tests and results and have had to consider or seek private medical care because of delays.
This is not simply an individual inconvenience. It demonstrates the importance of considering whether local healthcare infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support additional population growth.
Any proposal for substantial additional housing should therefore be supported by clear evidence from the relevant NHS bodies demonstrating that:
• local GP and primary healthcare capacity is sufficient;
• local hospital capacity is sufficient;
• waiting times and existing demand have been properly considered;
• additional population arising from development can be accommodated without further deterioration in access to healthcare; and
• appropriate healthcare infrastructure will be delivered alongside, rather than after, development.
Development should not proceed on the assumption that already-stretched healthcare services can simply absorb additional demand.
2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
There are approximately five schools in the immediate vicinity, and local residents already experience significant pressure on school places.
I understand that children living in Prestbury are being allocated school places outside the immediate local area because of the lack of available capacity.
This raises serious questions about whether the area has the infrastructure necessary to support substantial additional housing.
The Council should obtain and publish robust evidence of current and projected school capacity before considering any further development allocation. This should include the cumulative impact of existing developments and any other proposed developments in the area.
3. SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this area, particularly during school drop-off and collection periods and during normal morning and evening rush hours.
School traffic combines with commuter traffic to create congestion and gridlock on local roads.
The situation is particularly concerning around Alderley Road, which is relatively narrow and is not, in my view, suitable for absorbing substantial additional traffic without significant improvements.
I also understand that a very substantial proportion of traffic associated with The King's School originates outside the immediate Macclesfield area. This creates an additional traffic burden that must be considered as part of any cumulative transport assessment.
The Council should therefore require a comprehensive and independent transport assessment which considers:
• existing traffic levels;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• traffic generated by existing developments;
• traffic from all proposed developments cumulatively;
• highway safety;
• pedestrian safety;
• cycling infrastructure;
• emergency vehicle access;
• the capacity and width of Alderley Road and surrounding roads; and
• realistic peak-time traffic conditions rather than theoretical average conditions.
It would be unacceptable to assess each development proposal in isolation when residents experience the combined impact of existing and proposed development.
4. DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Drainage is a particularly serious concern in this area.
The drainage associated with the rugby club has historically been problematic, and Priory Lane is regularly affected by flooding. Existing drainage infrastructure appears to be under pressure during periods of heavy rainfall.
There are also properties at the end of Priory Lane which, to my understanding, remain reliant on septic tanks because mains sewerage is not available.
This raises fundamental questions about whether the existing drainage and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate additional development.
The Council should require detailed, independently verified evidence addressing:
• existing drainage capacity;
• existing flood locations;
• surface-water flows;
• groundwater conditions;
• sewer capacity;
• wastewater treatment capacity;
• septic-tank arrangements;
• climate-change impacts on rainfall and flooding;
• cumulative impacts from all proposed development; and
• the ability of sustainable drainage systems to function effectively on the proposed sites.
Development should not be permitted where it would increase flood risk to existing homes, roads or neighbouring land.
Importantly, drainage should be considered cumulatively. The fact that an individual development might propose mitigation does not demonstrate that the wider drainage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate multiple developments.
5. PROTECTION OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
The Green Belt and remaining open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory are important community and environmental assets.
The Council's current Local Plan consultation confirms that Green Belt has an important role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting countryside and preventing neighbouring settlements from merging. It also states that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed where the relevant exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere.
The Council should therefore:
• protect Green Belt land from unnecessary development;
• prioritise brownfield and previously developed land;
• protect open spaces and countryside;
• prevent further outward expansion of settlements;
• maintain meaningful separation between settlements;
• protect the rural setting of Prestbury; and
• ensure that any proposed Green Belt release is supported by compelling, transparent and independently tested evidence.
The Council's previous assessment work has recognised the importance of Green Belt land around Prestbury, including its role in preventing the merging of Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Further development risks gradually eroding the open land which currently provides an important buffer between settlements.
6. PROTECTION OF VILLAGE CHARACTER AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
7. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY
The land around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory supports a wide range of wildlife.
Residents regularly see or have observed wildlife including:
• bats;
• owls;
• falcons and other birds of prey;
• badgers;
• hedgehogs; and
• other mammals, birds and insects.
These areas provide more than isolated pockets of habitat. Hedgerows, mature trees, fields, woodland and open land can form interconnected wildlife corridors.
Development could result in:
• habitat loss;
• fragmentation of wildlife corridors;
• disturbance from construction;
• loss of mature trees and hedgerows;
• increased lighting;
• increased traffic;
• disturbance to nocturnal species; and
• long-term loss of biodiversity.
A proper ecological assessment should therefore be undertaken before any land is considered suitable for allocation.
The Council should specifically require assessment of protected species, habitat connectivity and cumulative biodiversity impacts rather than relying solely on a site-by-site assessment.
8. OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
High-voltage electricity pylons and overhead power infrastructure cross the wider area.
Their presence is an important consideration when assessing whether land is appropriate for residential development, particularly in relation to site layout, visual impact, safety, electromagnetic-field exposure and the appropriate separation of residential properties from electricity infrastructure.
I request that the Council obtains appropriate technical advice from the relevant electricity network operator and other competent authorities before considering any allocation in proximity to these installations.
Any assessment should be evidence-based and should consider the latest available scientific and regulatory guidance rather than assuming that the presence of the infrastructure has no relevance to residential development.
9. CUMULATIVE IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative impact of development.
The roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems, sewerage infrastructure and open spaces are already serving an established community.
The impact of one development cannot properly be assessed without considering:
• existing housing;
• previously approved developments;
• current planning applications;
• proposed Local Plan allocations;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• healthcare demand;
• drainage and flooding;
• wastewater infrastructure;
• ecological impacts; and
• the combined loss of open countryside.
The Council's emerging Local Plan specifically recognises infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints as factors that should inform where development is located.
I therefore request that cumulative infrastructure capacity assessments are undertaken before any further development is allocated in this area.
10. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
It is not sufficient to approve additional housing and then attempt to resolve infrastructure problems afterwards.
Before any major development is allocated, there should be clear evidence that:
1. adequate school places can be provided;
2. healthcare capacity is sufficient;
3. highway capacity is sufficient;
4. safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists;
5. drainage and sewerage capacity is adequate;
6. flood risk will not be increased;
7. emergency services can access the area;
8. wildlife and ecological networks can be protected;
9. Green Belt and settlement separation will not be unacceptably harmed; and
10. necessary infrastructure can be delivered at the same time as the development.
FORMAL REQUEST
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Does not allocate further land for major development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory where existing infrastructure cannot demonstrate sufficient capacity.
2. Protects the Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and settlement boundaries.
3. Requires independent and cumulative assessments of highways, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewerage, flooding and ecology before considering any further development.
4. Gives priority to brownfield and previously developed land rather than releasing additional greenfield and Green Belt land.
5. Ensures that infrastructure capacity is demonstrated before development is permitted or allocated.
6. Gives proper weight to the existing character and rural setting of Prestbury and the importance of maintaining separation between settlements.
7. Requires the cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed developments to be assessed rather than considering individual developments in isolation.
8. Ensures that residents are given meaningful opportunities to comment on any future site allocations affecting Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to further large-scale development in this area unless the Council can demonstrate, with robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure exists and that the environmental and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
The existing pressures on healthcare, schools, roads and drainage should not be ignored or treated as matters that can be resolved after development has taken place.
The remaining open countryside and Green Belt around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory also have significant value in maintaining the character of the area, preventing settlement coalescence and providing habitat for wildlife.
The principle should be simple: development must be directed to locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity exist, rather than placing further pressure on an area that is already struggling to cope.
I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to register this as my formal objection and representation to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and to take these concerns into account when assessing future development sites in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Natural environment
Representation ID: 5960
Received: 01/09/2026
Respondent: Alastair Hargreaves
The respondent highlights the importance of the land around Broken Cross, Prestbury, and Upton Priory for wildlife and biodiversity. They note that the area supports species such as bats, owls, birds of prey, badgers, hedgehogs, and other wildlife, with hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, fields, and open land forming valuable interconnected habitat corridors. Concerns are raised that development could result in habitat loss, fragmentation of wildlife networks, disturbance from construction, removal of trees and hedgerows, increased lighting and traffic, and long-term biodiversity decline. The respondent therefore calls for comprehensive ecological assessments, including protected species, habitat connectivity, and cumulative biodiversity impacts, before any allocation decisions are made.
FORMAL OBJECTION TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN BROKEN CROSS, PRESTBURY AND UPTON PRIORY
To: Cheshire East Council – Planning and Local Plan Team
Re: Cheshire East Local Plan – Formal Representation / Objection to Further Development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory
Date: 31 August 2026
FORMAL OBJECTION
I wish to make a formal objection to further large-scale development in and around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory and request that the area is not identified or allocated for further development within the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan unless and until it can be demonstrated, through robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure and environmental capacity exist.
The existing communities are already under considerable pressure. Further development in this location would place additional demands on healthcare, schools, roads, drainage, sewerage and other essential infrastructure, while also threatening Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and the distinctive character and separation of the settlements.
Cheshire East Council's own Local Plan consultation material recognises that the distribution of development must take account of infrastructure capacity, transport, flooding, ecology, open spaces, Green Belt and the character and function of settlements.
I therefore ask the Council to consider the following objections carefully.
1. HEALTHCARE AND HOSPITAL CAPACITY
Healthcare services in the area are already under significant pressure.
Local residents experience lengthy waits for appointments, investigations and test results. I have personally experienced a wait of more than four months for tests and results and have had to consider or seek private medical care because of delays.
This is not simply an individual inconvenience. It demonstrates the importance of considering whether local healthcare infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support additional population growth.
Any proposal for substantial additional housing should therefore be supported by clear evidence from the relevant NHS bodies demonstrating that:
• local GP and primary healthcare capacity is sufficient;
• local hospital capacity is sufficient;
• waiting times and existing demand have been properly considered;
• additional population arising from development can be accommodated without further deterioration in access to healthcare; and
• appropriate healthcare infrastructure will be delivered alongside, rather than after, development.
Development should not proceed on the assumption that already-stretched healthcare services can simply absorb additional demand.
2. PRESSURE ON LOCAL SCHOOLS
There are approximately five schools in the immediate vicinity, and local residents already experience significant pressure on school places.
I understand that children living in Prestbury are being allocated school places outside the immediate local area because of the lack of available capacity.
This raises serious questions about whether the area has the infrastructure necessary to support substantial additional housing.
The Council should obtain and publish robust evidence of current and projected school capacity before considering any further development allocation. This should include the cumulative impact of existing developments and any other proposed developments in the area.
3. SEVERE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Traffic congestion is already a major problem in this area, particularly during school drop-off and collection periods and during normal morning and evening rush hours.
School traffic combines with commuter traffic to create congestion and gridlock on local roads.
The situation is particularly concerning around Alderley Road, which is relatively narrow and is not, in my view, suitable for absorbing substantial additional traffic without significant improvements.
I also understand that a very substantial proportion of traffic associated with The King's School originates outside the immediate Macclesfield area. This creates an additional traffic burden that must be considered as part of any cumulative transport assessment.
The Council should therefore require a comprehensive and independent transport assessment which considers:
• existing traffic levels;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• traffic generated by existing developments;
• traffic from all proposed developments cumulatively;
• highway safety;
• pedestrian safety;
• cycling infrastructure;
• emergency vehicle access;
• the capacity and width of Alderley Road and surrounding roads; and
• realistic peak-time traffic conditions rather than theoretical average conditions.
It would be unacceptable to assess each development proposal in isolation when residents experience the combined impact of existing and proposed development.
4. DRAINAGE, FLOODING AND SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Drainage is a particularly serious concern in this area.
The drainage associated with the rugby club has historically been problematic, and Priory Lane is regularly affected by flooding. Existing drainage infrastructure appears to be under pressure during periods of heavy rainfall.
There are also properties at the end of Priory Lane which, to my understanding, remain reliant on septic tanks because mains sewerage is not available.
This raises fundamental questions about whether the existing drainage and wastewater infrastructure can accommodate additional development.
The Council should require detailed, independently verified evidence addressing:
• existing drainage capacity;
• existing flood locations;
• surface-water flows;
• groundwater conditions;
• sewer capacity;
• wastewater treatment capacity;
• septic-tank arrangements;
• climate-change impacts on rainfall and flooding;
• cumulative impacts from all proposed development; and
• the ability of sustainable drainage systems to function effectively on the proposed sites.
Development should not be permitted where it would increase flood risk to existing homes, roads or neighbouring land.
Importantly, drainage should be considered cumulatively. The fact that an individual development might propose mitigation does not demonstrate that the wider drainage system has sufficient capacity to accommodate multiple developments.
5. PROTECTION OF GREEN BELT AND OPEN COUNTRYSIDE
The Green Belt and remaining open countryside around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory are important community and environmental assets.
The Council's current Local Plan consultation confirms that Green Belt has an important role in preventing urban sprawl, protecting countryside and preventing neighbouring settlements from merging. It also states that Green Belt boundaries should only be changed where the relevant exceptional circumstances exist and development needs cannot be met elsewhere.
The Council should therefore:
• protect Green Belt land from unnecessary development;
• prioritise brownfield and previously developed land;
• protect open spaces and countryside;
• prevent further outward expansion of settlements;
• maintain meaningful separation between settlements;
• protect the rural setting of Prestbury; and
• ensure that any proposed Green Belt release is supported by compelling, transparent and independently tested evidence.
The Council's previous assessment work has recognised the importance of Green Belt land around Prestbury, including its role in preventing the merging of Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Further development risks gradually eroding the open land which currently provides an important buffer between settlements.
6. PROTECTION OF VILLAGE CHARACTER AND SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES
Prestbury has a distinctive character and rural setting which should be protected.
Continued expansion towards neighbouring built-up areas risks changing the character of the village and weakening the physical and visual separation between settlements.
The Local Plan should not simply treat undeveloped land on the edge of an existing settlement as an opportunity for expansion. The cumulative effect of repeated developments must be considered.
Once open countryside is developed, the loss is effectively permanent.
7. WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITY
The land around Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory supports a wide range of wildlife.
Residents regularly see or have observed wildlife including:
• bats;
• owls;
• falcons and other birds of prey;
• badgers;
• hedgehogs; and
• other mammals, birds and insects.
These areas provide more than isolated pockets of habitat. Hedgerows, mature trees, fields, woodland and open land can form interconnected wildlife corridors.
Development could result in:
• habitat loss;
• fragmentation of wildlife corridors;
• disturbance from construction;
• loss of mature trees and hedgerows;
• increased lighting;
• increased traffic;
• disturbance to nocturnal species; and
• long-term loss of biodiversity.
A proper ecological assessment should therefore be undertaken before any land is considered suitable for allocation.
The Council should specifically require assessment of protected species, habitat connectivity and cumulative biodiversity impacts rather than relying solely on a site-by-site assessment.
8. OVERHEAD ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
High-voltage electricity pylons and overhead power infrastructure cross the wider area.
Their presence is an important consideration when assessing whether land is appropriate for residential development, particularly in relation to site layout, visual impact, safety, electromagnetic-field exposure and the appropriate separation of residential properties from electricity infrastructure.
I request that the Council obtains appropriate technical advice from the relevant electricity network operator and other competent authorities before considering any allocation in proximity to these installations.
Any assessment should be evidence-based and should consider the latest available scientific and regulatory guidance rather than assuming that the presence of the infrastructure has no relevance to residential development.
9. CUMULATIVE IMPACT MUST BE CONSIDERED
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative impact of development.
The roads, schools, healthcare services, drainage systems, sewerage infrastructure and open spaces are already serving an established community.
The impact of one development cannot properly be assessed without considering:
• existing housing;
• previously approved developments;
• current planning applications;
• proposed Local Plan allocations;
• school traffic;
• commuter traffic;
• healthcare demand;
• drainage and flooding;
• wastewater infrastructure;
• ecological impacts; and
• the combined loss of open countryside.
The Council's emerging Local Plan specifically recognises infrastructure capacity and environmental constraints as factors that should inform where development is located.
I therefore request that cumulative infrastructure capacity assessments are undertaken before any further development is allocated in this area.
10. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD FOLLOW INFRASTRUCTURE – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
It is not sufficient to approve additional housing and then attempt to resolve infrastructure problems afterwards.
Before any major development is allocated, there should be clear evidence that:
1. adequate school places can be provided;
2. healthcare capacity is sufficient;
3. highway capacity is sufficient;
4. safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure exists;
5. drainage and sewerage capacity is adequate;
6. flood risk will not be increased;
7. emergency services can access the area;
8. wildlife and ecological networks can be protected;
9. Green Belt and settlement separation will not be unacceptably harmed; and
10. necessary infrastructure can be delivered at the same time as the development.
FORMAL REQUEST
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Does not allocate further land for major development in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory where existing infrastructure cannot demonstrate sufficient capacity.
2. Protects the Green Belt, open countryside, wildlife habitats and settlement boundaries.
3. Requires independent and cumulative assessments of highways, schools, healthcare, drainage, sewerage, flooding and ecology before considering any further development.
4. Gives priority to brownfield and previously developed land rather than releasing additional greenfield and Green Belt land.
5. Ensures that infrastructure capacity is demonstrated before development is permitted or allocated.
6. Gives proper weight to the existing character and rural setting of Prestbury and the importance of maintaining separation between settlements.
7. Requires the cumulative impact of existing, approved and proposed developments to be assessed rather than considering individual developments in isolation.
8. Ensures that residents are given meaningful opportunities to comment on any future site allocations affecting Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
CONCLUSION
I strongly object to further large-scale development in this area unless the Council can demonstrate, with robust and independently verified evidence, that the necessary infrastructure exists and that the environmental and community impacts can be satisfactorily addressed.
The existing pressures on healthcare, schools, roads and drainage should not be ignored or treated as matters that can be resolved after development has taken place.
The remaining open countryside and Green Belt around Prestbury, Broken Cross and Upton Priory also have significant value in maintaining the character of the area, preventing settlement coalescence and providing habitat for wildlife.
The principle should be simple: development must be directed to locations where infrastructure and environmental capacity exist, rather than placing further pressure on an area that is already struggling to cope.
I respectfully ask Cheshire East Council to register this as my formal objection and representation to the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan and to take these concerns into account when assessing future development sites in Broken Cross, Prestbury and Upton Priory.
