Local plan scoping consultation

To whom is may concern

These comments relate to the scope of the new local plan scoping consultation..

It has come to my attention that property developers have suggested that some of our Green Belt land could be suitable for new housing. I feel very strongly that our Green Belt land should be retained and any attempt to develop it should be strongly resisted. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are outlined below:-

1. In prioritising where development should take place brownfield and greenfield sites should be considered before contemplating Green Belt land. Within this I feel very strongly that brownfield sites are definitely the priority. This includes repurposing retail and industrial areas that have far less impact on the natural environment. In many cases this also improves sites that have become derelict. We have many examples of these in and around Macclesfield and probably across the County more broadly.

2. Removing the Green Belt will have a significant negative visual impact on the landscape and the character of the surrounding area of Macclesfield. I understand that increasing the housing stock is important, but not at the expense of such a cherished asset and at the risk of creating unrestricted sprawl of housing around Macclesfield.

3. The Green Belt is an important buffer and visual transition between the built environment and the open countryside. This is particularly true on the east of Macclesfield as the land rises up into the hills towards Teggs Nose Country Park and the Peak District National Park.

4. The Green Belt protects the landscape, particularly where the land is topographically elevated and where built development will be particularly dominant. The East of Macclesfield is a prime example of this, as is the land as it rises up towards Alderley Edge (the hill, not the village).

I am aware that property developers have identified the land adjacent to Blakelow, Buxton Old Road, Leadbeaters Reservoir and the South Acre Estate as a potential site for housing development. The last 3 points above speak strongly as to why this should not be approved.

If you require any further information please let me know
Kind regards

Michael Cadman