Full text:
Dear Strategic Planning Team,
As a resident of Whirley Road, I am concerned that the change of use of green areas could make the roads feel unsafe, push the area towards a more urban character, and place pressures on infrastructure that cannot support a larger population. I would like the scope of the Local Plan to reflect these concerns and to ensure green spaces are protected for wellbeing.
Green Belt and countryside
The Green Belt boundary around this part of Macclesfield follows Whirley Road and Birtles Road. The fields beyond it help contain the town and stop development spreading into the countryside. The government’s grey-belt guidance says that open land can still make a strong contribution to preventing sprawl where development would create an extended “finger” into the Green Belt. That is a real concern with several of the sites around Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane. The council should follow a clear order when looking for land: make full use of brownfield and underused urban land, test higher urban densities and existing safeguarded land, and only then consider Green Belt release. If Green Belt land is needed, national policy says previously developed land should come first, followed by grey belt and then other Green Belt land. Previous council assessments found that Green Belt parcels in this area made a significant contribution to preventing the unrestricted sprawl of Macclesfield. If the council now reaches a different view, it should explain what has changed.
Roads and access
Birtles Road, Whirley Road and Sandy Lane are narrow country roads. There are constrained sections, poor passing space and no continuous pavement. They are already used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and agricultural vehicles as well as cars. The Weaver Green development is particularly relevant. Cheshire East required its vehicle access to be from Chelford Road and specifically prohibited access onto Whirley Road “in the interests of highway safety” under planning permission 17/4277M. That decision does not automatically rule out every future development, but it shows that the council has already recognised safety problems on Whirley Road. If it now believes these roads can support more large housing sites, it should provide clear evidence explaining why. The council also needs to assess all the proposed sites around Greenside together. Looking at each site separately could seriously underestimate the combined traffic on Whirley Road, Birtles Road, Sandy Lane, Chelford Road and Broken Cross. Safe access, pavements, cycle routes and any necessary road widening should be shown to be genuinely possible before land is allocated, rather than left to be worked out later.
Infrastructure
Housing should only be planned where schools, doctors, drainage, public transport, utilities and roads can cope. The council should say what extra infrastructure each growth option would need, what it would cost, who would pay for it and when it would be delivered. It should also consider whether road improvements would require the removal of hedgerows, trees and verges or would change the rural character of the area.
Landscape, nature and drainage
Development around Greenside could create ribbon or finger-like development extending beyond the existing edge of Macclesfield. The council should assess the effect on the wider landscape, views, field patterns and the rural setting of places such as Roewood Farm. The area also contains ponds, mature hedgerows, trees and wildlife links, with the former-quarry Local Wildlife Site nearby. These features should be surveyed properly and considered together, rather than dealt with separately after a site has been chosen. Local concerns about heavy clay, standing water and surface-water flooding should also be investigated through proper seasonal drainage work. Electricity pylons, easements and other constraints should be deducted before estimating how many homes a site could realistically provide.
Previous assessments and consultation
Some of these areas have been rejected or not selected in the past because of Green Belt, access, landscape or other concerns. The council should publish those earlier findings alongside the full site submissions, new site assessments, scoring system, transport evidence and updated Green Belt work. A site can be reconsidered, but if the council reaches a different conclusion this time, it should explain what has changed and what new evidence supports that decision. Housing figures should also be based on the genuinely usable part of each site after allowing for access, drainage, ponds, pylons, landscaping and other constraints—not simply the total field area. Residents should be able to comment on this evidence before preferred sites are chosen, while there is still a real opportunity to influence the plan. Site submissions should also be clearly described as land put forward for consideration, not as planning applications or agreed housing allocations.
Please include these points in the scope of the Local Plan and provide a clear account of how public feedback will influence the plan’s vision, objectives and accompanying evidence base. I would also welcome an explanation of how the consultation responses will be reflected in the next stages of plan preparation.
Yours faithfully,
Gemma Barriskell
