Full text:
Hi all,
Further to Richard's submission re: the landfill site on Sandy Lane, it appears the site was actually first used by Ferrodo as early as 1971, under Environment Agency EAHLD31974 (https://environment.data.gov.uk/geoservices/datasets/7a955570-d465-11e4-a37c-f0def148f590/ogc/features/v1/collections/Historic_Landfill_Sites/items/Historic_Landfill_Sites.17330) and local knowledge is that asbestos based brake products were deposited during that period.
Obviously I would imagine records from that era are pretty sparse and waste storage safety standards were not as rigorous so the site would need thorough assessment by the promotor and proof it could be built on before it could be considered a potential site for allocation in the next stage, especially as a sand pit quarry is unlikely to provide adequate protection.
I also note that this field was submitted and rejected in the 2012 SHLAA as "directly on landfill".
One other related point - since the site has been closed, it has been designated an SE3 Local Wildlife centre and the fields around are part of the adopted ENV1 Ecolofical network ("Core" region to the north, "restoration" to the east and the site itself as corridor/stepping stone) and the land is in active use for cattle and sheep grazing. As I live locally and use the farm track to the east of the site, I can personally attest to the plethora of wildlife in the area including red kites, buzzards, bats, foxes and badgers, veteran trees, established ponds visible on maps from hundreds of years ago - so congratulations to the environmental team at Cheshire East as their policies are working really well! Obviously if the site was to be developed this would destroy the ecological benefits and be very tough to mitigate in a meaningful manner.
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 at 15:26, Richard Slater Henbury Travel <Richard@henburytravel.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Local Plan Team,
Please register this email as my formal representation concerning sites CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 in the New Local Plan process.
I am writing to raise concerns regarding the potential housing sites around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley, Macclesfield, particularly their proximity to the historic Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill.
I appreciate that these are currently site submissions rather than confirmed housing allocations. However, before any of these sites progress further through the site-selection process, I believe the Council should fully investigate their relationship with the historic landfill and the potential contamination and environmental issues associated with it.
The Environment Agency records Sandy Lane Landfill Site at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Macclesfield, under environmental permit KP3092CX, formerly Waste Management Licence 53470, dating from 1979.
Cheshire East's own published landscape evidence has also described Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site.
Given the proximity of sites CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, I believe the historic landfill should be treated as an important constraint when assessing their suitability for residential development.
The issue should not simply be whether a proposed housing boundary physically overlaps the recorded landfill boundary. Historic contamination, landfill gases, leachate and groundwater pathways can potentially extend beyond site and ownership boundaries.
I am particularly concerned that the full nature of the waste historically deposited in the former quarry does not appear to have been established publicly.
There is historical information concerning Ferodo/T&N, which manufactured friction products containing asbestos, together with historical references to Ferodo acquiring a disused sand pit on the outskirts of Prestbury/Macclesfield for waste disposal.
Given the documented history of sand extraction and subsequent landfill use at Sandy Lane/Whirley, I believe this is sufficiently significant to warrant proper investigation.
For clarity, I am not asserting that it has been proven that Ferodo asbestos waste was deposited at Sandy Lane/Whirley Quarry. My concern is that this important question appears unresolved.
Before adjoining land is assessed as suitable for residential development, I believe the Council should establish whether its historic records, Environment Agency records, the original waste licence or other archives identify Ferodo/T&N waste, asbestos-containing material or other industrial waste as having been deposited there.
Regardless of whether a Ferodo connection is ultimately established, the existence of the historic landfill itself raises a number of issues which I believe should be considered at the Local Plan site-assessment stage, including:
• The precise historic extent and depth of landfilling.
• The types and quantities of waste deposited.
• Contaminated soil and made ground.
• Possible asbestos-containing material and other industrial waste.
• Methane, carbon dioxide and other landfill gases.
• Leachate and groundwater contamination.
• Potential migration of contaminants beyond the recorded landfill boundary.
• Potential pathways towards neighbouring land around Sandy Lane and Birtles Road.
• The consequences of construction, excavation, piling and changes to drainage or groundwater conditions.
• Risks to construction workers and future residents.
• Whether remediation could realistically make the affected or adjoining sites suitable for residential development.
For residential development in particular, I believe it is important that the source-pathway-receptor relationship is properly understood before sites are selected for allocation, rather than relying entirely upon investigation after an allocation has already been made.
There are also ecological considerations. Cheshire East's own evidence has previously identified ponds and terrestrial habitat at Sandy Lane Pit, including habitat supporting great crested newts.
With several potential development sites surrounding this area, I would ask that the Council considers the cumulative environmental effect of development rather than assessing each submitted field or parcel entirely in isolation.
I would therefore be grateful if the Local Plan Team could confirm:
1. Whether the Sandy Lane/Whirley Quarry historic landfill has been formally recorded as a constraint when assessing CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557.
2. Whether the Council holds historic landfill, contaminated-land, ground-investigation, landfill-gas, groundwater or leachate records for Sandy Lane Pit/Whirley Quarry and its surroundings.
3. Whether Council or Environment Agency records establish what waste was permitted and/or actually deposited under former Waste Management Licence 53470.
4. Whether the Council holds any records concerning Ferodo/T&N waste disposal in former sand pits or quarries in the Sandy Lane, Whirley, Birtles Road or Prestbury area, including asbestos-containing friction-product waste.
5. Whether the Council's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team will be consulted as part of the assessment of these submitted housing sites.
6. Whether potential landfill gas, groundwater, leachate and contaminant migration from the former landfill onto neighbouring land will form part of the assessment.
7. Whether an appropriate preliminary contaminated-land assessment will be undertaken before CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 are considered suitable for residential allocation, rather than leaving these questions entirely to a future planning application.
8. Whether the ecological relationship between the former landfill, its ponds and terrestrial habitat, and the surrounding submitted sites will be assessed cumulatively, particularly in relation to great crested newts.
I fully recognise that the existence of a historic landfill or contaminated land does not automatically make neighbouring development impossible.
However, I do not believe land surrounding Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley Quarry should be regarded as suitable for residential allocation until the nature and extent of the historic landfill, its waste streams, potential contaminant pathways and wider environmental implications have been properly established.
This is particularly important where potentially large areas of land surrounding the former landfill are being put forward for residential development.
I would therefore be grateful if this correspondence could be formally recorded against CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 and taken into account when these sites are assessed through the New Local Plan process.
I would also be grateful if this correspondence could be forwarded to the Council's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team for comment.
I can provide supporting mapping and historical references concerning the landfill and Ferodo if these would assist the Council's assessment.
Please could you acknowledge receipt and confirm that these concerns have been recorded against the relevant site submissions.
Kind regards
Richard Slater
