Countryside must be protected at all costs.

Dear Strategic Planning Team,

I am writing to submit my representation on the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am a resident of Sutton, close to the southern and eastern edge of Macclesfield, and have lived in this area for many years. I am therefore commenting as someone who experiences the area on a daily basis and has seen how it has evolved over time.

I regularly use the local road network, public rights of way, footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes throughout Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and the surrounding countryside. As a keen cyclist and walker, I spend a significant amount of time travelling through these communities and the surrounding landscape. This has given me a detailed appreciation of the area's character, its importance for recreation and active travel, and the role that the surrounding countryside plays in maintaining the identity of these villages and the wider setting of Macclesfield.

The comments below are therefore based not only on planning policy but also on my direct experience of how the area functions, how local infrastructure is used and the cumulative effects that continued development has had on traffic, access to the countryside and the character of these communities.

I would be grateful if this email could be accepted as my overall representation to the consultation rather than as comments on individual sections of the consultation document.

Protecting the character of Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green

Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett derive much of their character and value from their distinct village identities, surrounding agricultural land, open countryside, landscape setting, access to nature and clear separation from the expanding urban area of Macclesfield.

My principal concern is that the new Local Plan should not regard the countryside surrounding these communities as the default location for accommodating future outward growth from Macclesfield.

The countryside between Macclesfield and its surrounding villages should not be regarded as undeveloped land awaiting a future use. It is already performing essential functions. It supports food production, biodiversity, flood management, carbon storage, public health, recreation, active travel, landscape character and the physical separation of communities.

It is therefore an important part of Cheshire East's natural infrastructure and should be planned for, protected and enhanced in the same way as other strategic infrastructure assets. Its value should be measured not by what could replace it, but by the many benefits it already provides.

Importantly, this countryside is not simply open land between settlements. It is an everyday public asset. Residents make extensive use of its network of footpaths, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes for recreation, exercise, commuting and access to the wider countryside. These routes make a significant contribution to public health, wellbeing and sustainable travel and should be recognised as an important part of the area's infrastructure.

The purpose of planning should not simply be to accommodate growth. It should also ensure that future generations inherit places that are at least as attractive, resilient and liveable as those enjoyed by current residents. That principle should be central to the preparation of the new Local Plan.

Brownfield first and urban regeneration

I strongly support a genuine brownfield and regeneration first approach.

I recognise that Cheshire East Council already maintains a statutory Brownfield Land Register, which identifies opportunities within Macclesfield including former mills, office buildings, commercial premises and other previously developed land.

However, this register is not intended to represent the full extent of the borough's urban capacity.

Before any Green Belt, agricultural land or open countryside is considered for development, the Council should publish a comprehensive urban capacity assessment that includes:

• Brownfield Land Register sites.

• Long-term vacant homes.

• Redundant warehouses and industrial premises.

• Underused office buildings.

• Vacant commercial premises.

• Upper floors above shops.

• Council-owned land.

• Appropriate town centre redevelopment opportunities.

• Stalled or expired planning permissions.

• Buildings suitable for conversion.

• Opportunities for land assembly and, where appropriate, the proportionate use of compulsory purchase powers to unlock long-term vacant or derelict sites.

The assessment should clearly distinguish between theoretical capacity, planning permissions already granted, sites under construction and genuinely deliverable future opportunities.

Only once these opportunities have been fully assessed and transparently evidenced should consideration be given to releasing agricultural land or countryside.

Green Belt

The existence of a housing requirement should not automatically constitute exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries.

If exceptional circumstances are claimed, the Council should demonstrate through published evidence that all realistic brownfield, regeneration, urban capacity and non-Green Belt alternatives have first been fully investigated.

The assessment of Green Belt or grey belt land should recognise the cumulative contribution that open land makes in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting the rural setting of villages.

Agricultural land

Agricultural land is a finite strategic resource and should be treated as such.

The Local Plan should give significant weight to:

• Food production.

• The viability of existing farming businesses.

• Agricultural land quality.

• Avoiding fragmentation of productive farmland.

• Soil health.

• Drainage and water management.

Agricultural land should not simply be viewed as land that is technically capable of accommodating development.

Infrastructure before development

The Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green area has already experienced significant housing growth over recent years.

Before any additional allocations are considered, the Council should undertake a cumulative assessment of:

• Highway capacity.

• Traffic congestion.

• Road condition and maintenance.

• Sewerage and wastewater infrastructure.

• Water supply.

• Gas and electricity networks.

• Digital infrastructure.

• School capacity.

• GP surgeries and healthcare provision.

• Public transport.

• Walking and cycling infrastructure.

Infrastructure should be demonstrated to have sufficient capacity before development is allocated, rather than improvements being promised afterwards.

Infrastructure providers should publish clear evidence identifying existing capacity, future requirements, funding arrangements and delivery timescales.

Walking, cycling and access to the countryside

Existing public rights of way, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes should be protected and enhanced.

Development should not reduce access to the countryside, increase danger for people walking or cycling, or diminish the enjoyment of these routes.

Walking and cycling improvements should complement the existing rural character of the area rather than urbanise it.

Landscape and biodiversity

The countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green forms an important part of the landscape setting of Macclesfield and the Peak District fringe.

The Local Plan should give substantial weight to protecting:

• Landscape character.

• Mature trees and hedgerows.

• Wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.

• Important views.

• Rural tranquillity.

• The transition between the urban area and open countryside.

Sustainability should not be measured solely by whether land is adjacent to an existing settlement. It should also consider the irreversible loss of agricultural land, natural capital, biodiversity, landscape quality, settlement identity and the long-term resilience of infrastructure.

Transparency of Call for Sites

I understand that land submitted through the 2024 and 2026 Call for Sites process has simply been put forward by landowners and developers for consideration and that these submissions do not represent proposed allocations or decisions by the Council.

For that reason I have deliberately avoided commenting on individual sites where the detailed evidence has not yet been published.

However, the existence of these submissions reinforces the importance of a transparent assessment process.

When site assessments are published, I ask the Council to provide, for every site affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield:

• Clear site boundaries.

• Site size.

• Proposed use and capacity.

• Green Belt status.

• Agricultural land classification.

• Existing land use.

• Landscape assessment.

• Ecology and biodiversity constraints.

• Highway and transport assessment.

• Infrastructure assessment.

• Public rights of way and active travel considerations.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Heritage constraints.

• Suitability, availability and deliverability assessments.

• The reasons why each site is progressed or rejected.

The Council should also publish a cumulative map showing existing allocations, completed developments, outstanding permissions and all submitted Call for Sites land so that residents can properly understand the overall impact of development around south and east Macclesfield rather than considering each site in isolation.

Settlement separation

I encourage the Council to assess whether local green gaps or settlement separation policies are appropriate around Macclesfield.

The distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett should be protected so that successive developments do not gradually erode the separation between these communities and Macclesfield.

Requested outcomes

I respectfully ask that the new Local Plan:

1. Prioritises regeneration and brownfield development before any greenfield expansion.

2. Publishes a comprehensive urban capacity assessment before considering Green Belt release.

3. Protects the distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett.

4. Assesses the need for local green gaps or settlement separation policies.

5. Gives significant weight to protecting productive agricultural land.

6. Undertakes cumulative infrastructure assessments before allocating further development.

7. Protects and enhances walking, cycling and public rights of way.

8. Gives substantial weight to landscape character, biodiversity and the setting of the Peak District fringe.

9. Publishes a locality-based schedule and map of all submitted sites affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield.

10. Publishes the evidence, methodology and scoring used to assess every submitted site.

11. Assesses the cumulative impact of all existing allocations, permissions, completed developments and new site submissions.

12. Gives residents and parish councils a meaningful opportunity to comment on individual site assessments before preferred allocations are selected.

13. Notifies residents registered for Local Plan updates and Sutton Parish Council when site assessments affecting this area are published.

Development should follow evidence, infrastructure capacity and regeneration opportunities, not convenience.

Once productive farmland, open countryside and the distinct separation between settlements have been lost, they cannot realistically be recreated. The decisions made through this Local Plan will shape this part of Cheshire East for generations.

I therefore urge the Council to place the long-term stewardship of our countryside, agricultural land, villages and communities at the heart of its strategy.

Protecting the countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that change is genuinely sustainable, proportionate and evidence-led, and that future generations inherit communities that are every bit as special, resilient and enjoyable as those we have the privilege of experiencing today.

Thank you for considering my representation. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response and notify me when future evidence, site assessments and draft allocations affecting the Macclesfield area are published.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Sidebotham

Cheshire Community Action response to the
Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping
Consultation – August 2026
Cheshire Community Action welcomes the opportunity to comment on the scope of the new
Cheshire East Local Plan.
CCA works with rural communities, parish and town councils, community buildings, neighbourhood
planning groups and voluntary organisations across Cheshire. Our response focuses on the need for
the Local Plan to connect housing growth with the services, facilities and community infrastructure
that make places sustainable.
Growth and sustainable communities
The new Local Plan is being prepared at a time of considerable housing pressure. Cheshire East is
expected to accommodate a substantially higher level of housing growth than under the existing
Local Plan, while also addressing pressures relating to affordability, infrastructure and the five-year
housing land supply.
CCA recognises the need for new homes. However, the central question should not be simply how
many homes are delivered, but whether growth creates stronger and more sustainable
communities.
Across rural Cheshire, communities frequently report that housing growth has not been matched by
improvements in public transport, health services, schools, shops, drainage, digital connectivity or
community facilities. In some places, the population has increased while local services have been
reduced, centralised or lost.
This creates a risk that settlements grow in size while becoming less sustainable and more
dependent on private cars and services elsewhere.
The Local Plan should therefore be based on an infrastructure-led and place-based approach.
Housing, employment, transport, community facilities and public services should be planned
together, with infrastructure delivered alongside development rather than after pressures have
emerged.
Rural housing and rural needs
Rural housing need is not simply a smaller version of urban housing need. Many villages face high
house prices, limited rented accommodation, ageing populations and difficulty retaining younger
households, local workers and families.
New housing in rural communities can help sustain local services, but only where it responds to
genuine local need. Too often, development produces larger market homes while the greatest need
is for affordable housing, social rented housing, smaller homes, accessible properties and
opportunities for older residents to downsize.
The Local Plan should provide a positive framework for rural exception sites, small-scale
development and community-led housing where these are supported by local evidence and
contribute to the long-term sustainability of a settlement.
A borough-wide housing assessment will be important, but it should be informed by parish-level
evidence, rural housing needs surveys and neighbourhood plans. Housing pressures vary significantly
between communities and cannot always be understood through borough-wide averages.
The emerging Cheshire and Warrington Rural Needs Analysis should also inform the Local Plan. The
analysis highlights the interconnected nature of rural housing, transport, digital connectivity, skills,
service access and community infrastructure. These issues should be considered together rather
than through separate policy areas.
Community buildings and facilities
CCA welcomes the recognition in the consultation that village halls, places of worship and other
community facilities are important to community life.
These buildings should be understood as essential social infrastructure. Village halls and community
centres are no longer used only for meetings and social events. They increasingly host health and
wellbeing services, childcare, advice, exercise, adult learning, digital access, cultural activities and
emergency support.
In many rural communities, they are the last remaining publicly accessible building and provide a
base for both voluntary activity and public service delivery.
Housing growth creates additional demand for these facilities, but it can also place pressure on
buildings that are already ageing, expensive to operate or dependent on volunteers. The Local Plan
should protect valued community facilities and support their improvement, flexible use and long
term sustainability.
Where larger developments are proposed, community facilities should be considered from the
outset rather than treated as an optional addition. Investment should reflect not only the cost of
constructing a building, but also how it will be managed and sustained over time.
Neighbourhood planning
Cheshire East has a particularly strong neighbourhood planning tradition, with a high number of
made and emerging neighbourhood plans across the borough.
These plans represent a significant investment of community time and contain valuable evidence
about local housing needs, infrastructure, design, green spaces and community facilities. They
should be treated as an important foundation for the new Local Plan.
The Local Plan process should work with parish and town councils and neighbourhood planning
groups to understand where local evidence remains current and where communities may need to
review their plans in response to changing housing requirements and national policy.
The new Local Plan should complement neighbourhood plans rather than duplicate or
unintentionally undermine them. Where strategic requirements conflict with locally identified
priorities, this should be explained openly and discussed with communities at an early stage.
The Combined Authority and wider strategic context
The Local Plan will sit within the developing strategic framework of the Cheshire and Warrington
Combined Authority.
The Combined Authority’s priorities include housing, transport, skills, investment, economic growth
and strategic planning. These priorities reinforce the need to consider development as part of a
wider system rather than as a series of individual housing allocations.
The Local Plan should help ensure that future Combined Authority investment reaches rural
communities as well as larger towns and urban centres. This includes investment in public and
community transport, digital infrastructure, affordable housing, community assets and access to
employment and skills.
The relationship between the Local Plan and the emerging Spatial Development Strategy will be
particularly important. Strategic housing and economic growth should be accompanied by clear
plans for the infrastructure and community capacity needed to support it.
Role of the VCFSE sector
The voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise sector has an important role in land use and
place development.
VCFSE organisations own and manage buildings and land, deliver health and social services, operate
community transport, develop community-led housing and energy projects, and support residents
who may not engage through formal consultation processes.
The sector is therefore more than a stakeholder to be consulted. It is a delivery partner and a source
of detailed local evidence.
The Local Plan process should provide meaningful opportunities for VCFSE organisations to
contribute to the evidence base and to discussions about housing, health, community facilities,
social value and infrastructure.
This will be particularly important in rural communities, where voluntary organisations and
community buildings often help fill gaps left by reduced or centralised services.
Conclusion
CCA supports the preparation of a new Local Plan that enables the homes and economic
development Cheshire East needs.
However, growth should be judged by whether it produces sustainable, connected and inclusive
places, not only by the number of homes delivered.
For rural communities in particular, this means addressing housing affordability, access to services,
transport, digital connectivity and community infrastructure together. It also means making full use
of the evidence and local leadership already provided by neighbourhood plans, parish and town
councils, community organisations and the wider VCFSE sector.
CCA would welcome continued engagement with Cheshire East Council as the evidence base, spatial
strategy and detailed policies are developed.
For further information about this response, please contact:
John Heselwood
Deputy Chief Executive, Cheshire Community Action

The move towards National Decision-Making Policies must not result in the quiet loss of Cheshire East's locally specific countryside protections. Existing Policy PG 6 and relevant RUR policies should be audited against the final national policies. Where local provisions are proposed for removal, the Council should identify the replacement and demonstrate equivalent or stronger protection for landscape character, settlement form, biodiversity and the open countryside. Local policy should be retained wherever Cheshire-specific circumstances justify it.

In general the current policies are serving their purpose. Nonetheless, adjacent housing estates are approved. Design needs to complement the setting and sustainability is often an issue in terms of total reliance upon private cars. Transport issues are occuring too often for the elderley and those with needs. The creation of brown curtilage with intent to build homes is to be discouraged - stables and equestrian centres etc.

Our local significant ecosystems and environments like peat should be protected, and not used for housing.

Agricultural land is precious and under constant threat, Its availability is not infinite.
Therefore the protection of Cheshire's valuable farming land should be prioritised over any type of development.
With the recent hot summers, everyone's focus has turned to the fragility of the UK's food security.
Agricultural land should not become land that is capable of being developed.

We would expect Local Plan policies to provide appropriate protection against the destruction of good farming land to housing or commercial development.

Any additional local policies must be positive, and not simply a means of putting up local barriers that impede or hinder good developments.

Development in the open countryside should continue to be generally restricted, with an exception in principle enabling the support of rural businesses, including farming, countryside management and the visitor economy. It should be informed by an understanding of local landscape character and natural and cultural heritage.

When considering developments in the countryside and rural areas, high priority must be given to protect agricultural and food producing land from development. The drop in productivity during the recent drought has highlighted the UK's vulnerability when it comes to food security. Rural communities tend not to have the required infrastructure or facilities to support larger developments.

Mobberley:
Devaluation surrounding properties prevents economic village growth
Overpopulation doesn’t protect/enhance historic environment & community - Youth club already above demand
TPO oak trees Pavement Lane/Springfield Road
Existing traffic severely damaged roads & constant closures
All roads overrun with double parking
Climate change farmland pollution with noise already a problem for local animals
GP practice already overrun & named one of worst in Cheshire East
1/6 live in rural areas - not beneficial here
Water & drainage over capacity already & bursting
Council already cannot cope with recycling & do not collect rubbish
Roads too narrow crashes happen every week

The Local Plan should prioritise the preservation of agricultural land, whether currently farmed or not, to provide food security for the country, especially with the threat of future conflicts and climate change. More housing requires more food producing land. Once land becomes urban and covered in concrete, it will never go back to agriculture. Remote rural communities lack the infrastructure of a town or village. Many hamlets lack mains sewerage, mains gas, pavements, street lighting, shops, schools or any kind of public transport. They would be unsuitable for housing estates without massive urbanisation.

Development in open countryside should be restricted as it is now to conform with policy PG6. Unless these policies are taken seriously we will destroy significant parts of our natural environment. In addition, development in such areas is not sustainable housing without significant increase in the local infrastructure

What is the status of previous local policies such as the Peckforton Plan 2007, Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Strategy? We strongly advocate their development, updating and application in building site selection.

Absolutely object to this project being in Ashley

Many of the site submissions clearly fail when considered against existing Policy PG6

Para 29
In view of the very limited space allocation provided here please refer to attached document 260824 - CEC Local Plan Scoping Consultation_GK response. Section 5.29 refers.

Development in open countryside should reflect the current policies in the adopted local plan and safeguard village identity. Urban sprawl in to open countryside should be properly controlled and contained.

The Local Plan should give strong protection to productive agricultural land. Food-producing land is a finite strategic resource: once covered by housing and infrastructure, its productive capacity is effectively lost forever. Food security, agricultural quality, farm viability and fragmentation should therefore be explicit considerations in site selection. This is particularly relevant at Adlington, an actively farmed landscape supporting livestock and hay and silage production. Where land is broadly classified Grade 3, detailed surveys should distinguish Best and Most Versatile Grade 3a land from Grade 3b before allocation is considered.

Considering supplementing national policies with local policies regarding development in the countryside seems a prudent approach. It also provides a clear opportunity to draw upon the opinions, knowledge and expertise to be found in the population of Cheshire East to input into, and help draft any local policies deemed necessary. We would recommend a dedicated assembly with a diverse range of expertise be created to further this. The timetable of the development of the new plan provides ample opportunity to build this in.

Countryside development should not be contrary to the LNRS and should not involve development on peatlands or other irreplaceable habitats.

CEC should consider additional local environmental strategies for environmental protection and climate change, including a blanket restriction on development on peatlands. This was advised directly by letter from Natural England to CEC in 2022, and it should be adopted and clearly stated as such.

The importance of the Cheshire countryside is obvious any further development in the Countryside should be refused as the existing use is of National importance.

Whilst I totally and wholeheartedly agree with all the heartfelt and valid objections already made, I feel I have to hammer home the ridiculous and dangerous decision to build on such incredibly valuable farmland, which, in the scarily dangerous times we are now living in, will become more and more vital. We really must start to provide more of our own food again, for what seems to me incredibly obvious reasons!! ONCE IT IS GONE IT IS GONE!!!

How can we in rural settlements help your considerations? We welcome the opportunity

We must protect are Green spaces for all as they are vital for recreation and mental wellbeing.
I'm really concerned about the pressures to develop sites such as peatlands which are not only extremely important habitats with unique biodiversity but also natural carbon stores. Peatlands are irreplaceable and with the loss of them there would be loss of internationally important nesting sites.
Peatlands are also good at flood protection, being able to soak up water and release it slowly.

Current policies (if applied fully) are sound.

Cheshire East should take a balanced, county-wide approach to housing delivery, ensuring development reflects where housing need, employment and infrastructure are located rather than concentrating growth disproportionately in particular areas.

Cheshire East’s housing requirement should be assessed against existing commitments, brownfield and regeneration opportunities and sites already safeguarded and identified through the call for sites. There is significant potential to meet the requirement through a range of sites across the borough which reflect the geography of housing need and employment, helping to reduce commuting and pressure on already constrained transport networks.

Development should be directed towards locations where transport, schools, healthcare, utilities and community facilities already exist or can be expanded alongside growth. These will be more sustainable and deliverable than relying on locations requiring major new infrastructure.

5.29 The Ollerton with Marthall Neighbourhood Plan should be the starting point. It has only recently been made and is part of the statutory development plan. Its evidence, policies, landscape work and description of the parish should feed directly into the new Local Plan.