Local plan scoping consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to submit my comments regarding the proposed allocation of land at Cumber Lane and Upcast Lane (CFS26 535; CFS26 416; CFS26 376; CFS26 384LL) for residential development.
I have submitted objections to previous consultations concerning this site over a number of years and remain concerned that such a substantial area continues to be considered for development despite the significant issues that have consistently been raised by local residents.
This site is unsuitable for several reasons.
Firstly, the area contains peatland and provides an important habitat for a wide range of wildlife. Once these natural assets are lost, they cannot realistically be restored. The long-term environmental value of this land should be given substantial weight in the Council's assessment.
Secondly, the location is poorly suited to sustainable residential development. It is not within convenient walking distance of Wilmslow town centre, the railway station or many essential services. Sustrans defines a walkable neighbourhood as one where key amenities are within a 20-minute walk. As a resident of Bramley Close, I can confirm that Wilmslow town centre is approximately a 30-minute walk, while Wilmslow railway station is around 35 minutes away.
This distance is likely to result in a high level of car dependency, contrary to the Council's sustainability objectives and national planning policy aimed at reducing private vehicle use.
Reference:
https://www.walkwheelcycletrust.org.uk/our-blog/research/walkable-neighbourhoods-building-in-the-right-places-to-reduce-car-dependency/
The local road network is also ill-equipped to accommodate the additional traffic that would be generated. Most vehicle movements would inevitably route via Moor Lane and Chapel Lane, roads which are already heavily congested at peak times. Large sections have only a single pavement, creating particular concerns for pedestrian safety. This is especially important given the significant number of school children who walk along these routes each day to Wilmslow High School and other nearby schools, often being forced to walk close to moving traffic because of the limited pavement provision and width.
I have previously raised these concerns during consultations on both the Wilmslow Plan and Bellway Homes' earlier planning proposals for this site. It is therefore disappointing to find the same land being reconsidered without any clear indication that the substantial body of previous public feedback has materially influenced the process. Public consultation is only meaningful if the concerns raised are demonstrably considered when assessing the suitability of proposed development sites.
There are more appropriate locations for new housing that are better connected to existing infrastructure, public transport, local services and the strategic road network. Prioritising such sites would better support sustainable development while reducing unnecessary pressure on existing residential roads.
It is also important to consider the cumulative impact of housing growth already taking place across the area. Significant developments are currently under construction within and around Wilmslow, including the major developments at Woodford, together with numerous other developments across the wider borough. The cumulative effects on infrastructure, traffic, healthcare, schools and public services should be fully assessed before allocating further large greenfield sites (including those safeguarded green spaces).
Finally, Cheshire East has declared commitments to protecting biodiversity and addressing climate change. Development of this site would permanently remove valuable green space, wildlife habitat and peatland, while encouraging greater car dependency because of its location. These outcomes appear inconsistent with those commitments. The land referenced is full of diverse wildlife including bats, newts, birds of prey and a wide array of less common birds.
I therefore strongly urge the Council to remove this site from further consideration and instead focus future housing allocations on locations that are demonstrably more sustainable, better connected to existing infrastructure and less environmentally sensitive. The referenced land should never have been changed from Greenbelt to Safeguarded status and should be returned to Greenbelt at the nearest opportunity.
Please could you officially provide acknowledgement of my comments.
Yours faithfully,
David Richmond