Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1937

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The land between Macclesfield FC and the canal corridor, near Bullocks Lane, should be screened out of future housing allocations. It is open countryside which provides a clear rural setting and separation between Macclesfield and Sutton. A large development here would not be limited infill: it would permanently urbanise agricultural land and extend the built-up area into the countryside. The site assessment must give substantial weight to landscape impact, loss of farmland, biodiversity, access constraints and the cumulative effect of nearby development, rather than treating land availability alone as evidence of suitability.

Comment

Representation ID: 1938

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

I object to any release of Green Belt land between Macclesfield FC and the canal corridor near Bullocks Lane. The site performs a clear Green Belt function by preventing outward sprawl and retaining the rural separation and distinct identity of Sutton. It is not previously developed land and should not be treated as grey belt without robust, site-specific evidence. The Council should first maximise brownfield, vacant and underused land, optimise suitable urban densities, and assess non-Green-Belt options. No exceptional circumstances for releasing this open countryside have been demonstrated.

Comment

Representation ID: 1940

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The spatial strategy must protect Sutton’s separate rural identity. Sutton Lane Ends is currently treated as an infill village, where development should remain genuinely limited and within the defined village boundary. A large housing site by Bullocks Lane would instead represent an urban extension of Macclesfield, eroding the countryside gap and changing Sutton’s character and function. Growth should be directed first towards sustainable, accessible locations within Macclesfield, including brownfield and underused urban land, where it can support town-centre regeneration and make better use of existing services and public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 1941

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

No housing allocation should be considered near Bullocks Lane/Sutton until there is transparent, independent highways evidence. Local roads are narrow and unsuitable for a major increase in daily vehicle movements. Traffic and parking pressure around Macclesfield FC is already severe on match days; development beside the stadium would compound congestion, access difficulties and risks to pedestrians and cyclists. The assessment must include match-day and event-day surveys, not only average weekday traffic, and must show how safe access, parking, public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure would be delivered before—not after—development.

Comment

Representation ID: 1943

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Local Plan should protect the fields and canal corridor near Bullocks Lane as connected green infrastructure, not regard them as empty land awaiting development. Their value includes agricultural use, landscape character, wildlife habitat, hedgerows, mature trees and movement routes for nature. Development at this scale would fragment the countryside edge and create noise, lighting, recreational pressure and runoff impacts. The Council should require detailed ecological, tree, landscape and agricultural-land assessments at the site-selection stage. Biodiversity net gain must not be used to justify the loss of established countryside and functioning habitats.

Comment

Representation ID: 1944

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Plan should adopt a stronger town-centre-first and brownfield-first strategy before considering open countryside around Sutton. Macclesfield has underused and vacant buildings, previously developed land and regeneration opportunities that could provide homes while supporting the town centre, services and public transport. The Council’s Brownfield Land Register and town-centre evidence should be fully reviewed and prioritised through a clear sequential approach. Reusing urban land would reduce pressure on farmland and Green Belt, avoid car-dependent outward growth, and help deliver the stated objective of improving the vitality and viability of Macclesfield town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 1946

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Plan’s climate objectives are inconsistent with allocating open agricultural land near Bullocks Lane/Sutton for a car-dependent urban extension. Protecting soils, hedgerows and green space supports carbon storage, climate resilience, food production and surface-water management. Building in this location would generate additional car trips, including during existing football-stadium peak periods, and would increase emissions unless exceptional transport infrastructure is delivered. The Council should prioritise reuse, refurbishment and brownfield regeneration in Macclesfield, as recognised in paragraph 5.117, before considering the irreversible loss of countryside and productive farmland.

Comment

Representation ID: 1947

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Council should distinguish between permanent urban expansion and genuinely reversible renewable-energy infrastructure. It should prioritise rooftop solar, car-park canopies and brownfield land, and protect agricultural Green Belt land near Bullocks Lane from permanent housing. Any renewable proposal on open land must demonstrate that it avoids the best agricultural land, protects biodiversity and landscape character, permits continued agricultural use where possible, and secures full restoration. Renewable energy should not be used as a reason to weaken protection for countryside or settlement separation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1948

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Council should distinguish between permanent urban expansion and genuinely reversible renewable-energy infrastructure. It should prioritise rooftop solar, car-park canopies and brownfield land, and protect agricultural Green Belt land near Bullocks Lane from permanent housing. Any renewable proposal on open land must demonstrate that it avoids the best agricultural land, protects biodiversity and landscape character, permits continued agricultural use where possible, and secures full restoration. Renewable energy should not be used as a reason to weaken protection for countryside or settlement separation.

Comment

Representation ID: 1950

Received: 18/08/2026

Respondent: Mr Daniel Fullwood

The Local Plan must reconcile its town-centre-first and regeneration objectives with any proposal to allocate open countryside around Sutton. Paragraphs 5.70–5.75 recognise the importance of revitalising town centres, while paragraphs 5.16–5.18 require brownfield and underused land to be prioritised before Green Belt release. Macclesfield has vacant and underused buildings and identified regeneration opportunities. The Council should publish a transparent brownfield capacity assessment and apply a sequential approach before considering greenfield sites. This would support Macclesfield’s vitality, reduce pressure on farmland and retain Sutton’s distinct rural identity.