Full text:
As a resident of [REDACTED], I am concerned about the proposed development and would like the Local Plan to properly address the significant impacts that further development in this area could have, with clear safeguards, mitigation measures and timescales.
Highways, traffic and road safety
The roads around Belmont Avenue, including Whirley Road, Birtles Road and Sandy Lane, are narrow, with limited pedestrian provision and variable passing space. They are already used by pedestrians, walkers, runners, cyclists, horse riders and vehicles, and I do not believe they are suitable for the significant increase in traffic that a new housing development would generate.
Living in close proximity to a school, I am particularly concerned about the existing congestion and parking pressures during school drop-off and pick-up times. Increasing the number of residents and vehicle movements in the area could significantly compound these problems and create additional risks for children, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.
I would therefore ask that a detailed and independent assessment of the capacity and safety of the surrounding road network is undertaken, including the cumulative impact of this development alongside other planned or proposed developments in the area.
There should also be a clear requirement for appropriate pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, safe crossing points and traffic-management measures before any significant number of new homes are occupied.
Construction traffic is another concern. Given the restricted width and nature of these roads, I would like the plan to establish how construction vehicles would access the site without creating unacceptable risks, congestion, noise or damage to local roads.
Loss of countryside and recreational value
We strongly object to the development of these fields. The surrounding countryside is used daily by many local residents and people from further afield for walking, running, cycling, dog walking, bird watching and other recreational activities.
These fields provide much more than undeveloped land. They contribute to the character of the area and provide an accessible natural environment that supports people's physical and mental wellbeing. The permanent loss of these spaces would have a significant impact on the local community.
Any assessment of the site should therefore properly consider its existing recreational, landscape and amenity value, rather than assessing the land simply in terms of its potential capacity for housing.
Wildlife and biodiversity
The fields contain numerous trees, hedgerows, grassland areas and ponds which provide important habitats for wildlife. A wide variety of birds and other wildlife can regularly be seen in the area, including birds of prey such as owls and buzzards.
I am concerned that developing these fields would result in the loss and fragmentation of established habitats. I would like the council to provide clear information on:
- What ecological surveys will be required before the site can be considered suitable for development?
- How will existing trees, mature hedgerows, ponds and other habitats be protected?
- How will impacts on protected and priority species be assessed?
- How will habitat fragmentation and disturbance during and after construction be addressed?
- How will the claimed biodiversity net gain be independently measured and verified?
- Where habitat is lost, where exactly will replacement habitat be provided and for how long will it be protected?
Biodiversity net gain should not simply become a mechanism for allowing established local habitats to be destroyed and replaced elsewhere. The priority should be to avoid and minimise ecological damage at the site itself.
Green Belt and urban alternatives
I am also concerned that development on the surrounding fields could erode the Green Belt boundary that helps contain Macclesfield and prevent further urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside.
I would like the Local Plan to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been properly considered before Green Belt land is released for development. This should include brownfield sites, previously developed land, underused urban land, opportunities for appropriate higher-density development and any other suitable land within or adjoining the existing urban area.
The exceptional circumstances for releasing this particular Green Belt land should be clearly demonstrated, rather than assuming that Green Belt release is necessary simply because additional housing is required.
Infrastructure and public services
New housing will increase the population of the area and place additional pressure on already stretched local services, including schools, healthcare and Macclesfield Hospital.
The Local Plan should clearly identify the additional capacity that would be required and how it would be delivered. It is important that infrastructure is provided alongside new housing rather than allowing development to take place first and expecting existing services to absorb the additional demand.
This should include:
- School places and school transport;
- GP and NHS capacity;
- Macclesfield Hospital;
- Roads and junction capacity;
- Walking and cycling infrastructure;
- Public transport;
- Drainage and surface-water management;
- Open space and recreational facilities.
Drainage and flooding
I am also concerned about the impact of replacing open fields with roads, driveways, roofs and other hard surfaces. This has the potential to increase surface-water runoff and place additional pressure on existing drainage systems.
A robust drainage strategy should therefore be required, demonstrating that development will not increase flood risk either on the site or for existing properties and roads downstream. Sustainable drainage systems should be designed to provide genuine long-term capacity rather than simply relying on existing local infrastructure.
Landscape and character
The development would fundamentally change the character of this part of Macclesfield by replacing open countryside with housing, roads, lighting and associated infrastructure.
The cumulative visual and landscape impact should be assessed from surrounding residential areas, roads and public rights of way. The assessment should also consider whether the development would effectively extend the built-up area of Macclesfield into the surrounding countryside.
Overall, I strongly object to the proposed development and ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the environmental, highway, infrastructure, recreational and Green Belt impacts are fully assessed before this land is considered suitable for allocation.
In particular, I ask that the council demonstrates:
1. Why this Green Belt site is required when reasonable brownfield and urban alternatives are available.
2. That the surrounding road network can safely accommodate the additional traffic.
3. That adequate school, healthcare, transport and other infrastructure can be provided.
4. That existing wildlife habitats and protected species will be properly protected.
5. That there will be no unacceptable increase in flooding or drainage problems.
6. That the loss of recreational countryside and landscape character has been properly considered.
7. That the cumulative impact of this and other proposed developments around Macclesfield has been assessed rather than considering each development in isolation.
Thank you for considering my comments.
