Local plan scoping consultation

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative

Firstly, it is disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the schools summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet in the six weeks over the summer holidays, and many local community organisations will also have many of their key members away on holiday at this time. To run a consultation during this period appears deliberately intended to exclude or frustrate as many interested organisations as possible from submitting organisational responses, or at the very least suggests a lack of appropriate foresight and planning or consideration for local organisations.

Paragraph 1.7 of the consultation document states that the consultation does not include details of likely sites to be considered for the local plan, and yet details of the sites submitted in the ‘call for sites’ so far are provided alongside this consultation. This is confusing, and again suggests a lack of appropriate foresight or clarity about the purpose of this consultation.

Why prepare a new plan?

The current local plan dates from 2017, and will be more than ten years old by the time the proposed local plan is approved. There have been significant changes over this period, and it is disappointing that the Council has waiting so long to undertake work for the new plan, particularly as changes imposed by the Labour Government on Cheshire East (including a 156 percent increase in housing targets) means that the borough now does not have a five year housing supply, with consequences for ‘speculative’ development across much of thr borough.

Increased housing requirement

It is disappointing that the local plan scoping consultation has not made clear that (a) Cheshire East’s population grew by almost twice the national average between 2011 and 2021; (b) Cheshire East’s population was projected to increase by almost twice the national average between 2022 and 2035 BEFORE the Labour Government imposed a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target; and (c) the number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now considerably exceeded the housing targets, which is not taken into consideration in the housing supply figures or housing target figures.

Paragraph 3.7 makes clear the consequences of the Labour Government’s imposition of a 156 percent increase in the borough’s housing target. But is also makes clear that the Council should have started the process of developing a new local plan in December 2024, rather than waiting until October 2026. This delay means that there will be an additional 18 months of speculative housing development, destruction of greenbelt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.

Brownfield sites

Paragraph 3.15 is largely meaningless – the Labour Government’s changes to the planning system incentives development on open farmland and in the countryside, and disincentivises development on brownfield sites. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, and changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as use of its wider powers by Cheshire East Council, would enable this. It is disappointing that the Council has failed to use its wider development powers (such as local development orders) to encourage development on larger brownfield sites. The failure of vision and proactive action with regards to the land around the old telephone exchange on the Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on the Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.

The new local plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development.

Supplementary planning documents

Nationally, some 3.8 million people aged 55 and over want to downsize, but are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the lack of appropriate next move accommodation in their local neighbourhood (White et al, 2023). Given that Cheshire East has an above average proportion of its population in this age group, it is disappointing that the Council does not have and is not proposing to have supplementary planning guidance around older people’s housing choices.

The new local plan needs to include supplementary planning guidance on older people’s housing, including residential and nursing homes.

Baseline information and spatial portrait

Cheshire East is a largely rural borough, and makes a significant contribution to our national food security, particularly in relation to diary products. It is disappointing that the contribution and importance of the rural economy – particularly farming – is not recognised in this scoping document. (And is contribution is underplayed in the section on heritage). Macclesfield constituency is also home to the highest per capita rate of employment in the life sciences, and the Cheshire Science Corridor is also a fundamentally important part of our local economy. Again, it is disappointing that this is not recognised in this scoping document.

The new local plan needs to make clear the important contribution that Cheshire East makes to the nation’s food security.

Greenbelt

The Labour Government’s determination to concrete over the greenbelt is self evident. The purpose of the greenbelt – which covers almost all rural land in Macclesfield constituency that is not in the Peak District National Park – is to prevent urban sprawl. There is a considerable research evidence base about the negative consequences of urban sprawl, not least on public health and economic growth.

The new local plan needs to make clear the substantial evidence base of the negative consequences of urban sprawl, and ensure that appropriate protections are maintained to prevent urban sprawl for turning us into a suburb of Greater Manchester.


Dr Chris O’Leary
Councillor – Sutton Ward
Conservative