Local plan scoping consultation

Please accept this email and the accompanying photographic evidence as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I am a resident [personal information redacted] 2026 Call for Sites exercise as CFS26 358 - Land North of Blakelow Road, Macclesfield.
I understand that the present consultation concerns the scope, evidence base and approach of the new Local Plan, rather than determining individual Call for Sites submissions, and that there will be a subsequent opportunity to comment specifically on sites at the Plan Content and Evidence stage.
I am therefore submitting these comments principally to identify matters which I believe should form part of the Council's Green Belt and site-assessment methodology. However, as my property directly adjoins CFS26 358, I also ask that the evidence and observations below are retained and taken into account when this particular site is assessed subsequently.
I have now also seen the March 2026 Site Promotion Report prepared by Quod Ltd on behalf of Wain Homes North West and Teakwood Developments, which includes an illustrative masterplan for approximately 113 homes and confirms that pre-application discussions with Cheshire East Council have already commenced.
1. Green Belt and the current grey-belt assessment
The whole site is presently designated Green Belt and Open Countryside. The promoter itself describes the land as undeveloped.
I recognise that national Green Belt policy has changed significantly and that Cheshire East must assess potential grey-belt land when preparing its new Local Plan. However, I do not believe the promoter's conclusion that this site is "clearly Grey Belt" should be accepted without a fresh and independent assessment by the Council.
This is particularly important because the Quod Site Promotion Report was prepared in March 2026, before publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework on 17 August 2026.
The current NPPF now requires local Green Belt assessments to follow the methodology in Annex E.
In particular, assessment areas should be small enough to identify variations in their contribution to Green Belt purposes and should be subdivided where necessary.
This appears especially relevant to CFS26 358 because it is not a uniform parcel of land. It contains distinctly different areas of open grazing land, rough grassland and scrub, steeply sloping fields, mature trees and established field boundaries.
I therefore ask that CFS26 358 is assessed under the current August 2026 NPPF using appropriately detailed assessment parcels, rather than treating the whole site as a single homogeneous area.
The promoter's own report also acknowledges that Cheshire East's 2015 Green Belt Assessment placed this area within parcel MF40 and assessed that parcel as making a "Significant Contribution" to the Green Belt. I recognise that this earlier assessment does not determine the result under the new national methodology, but it demonstrates why a new independent assessment is necessary rather than simply accepting the promoter's alternative judgement that the land now makes only a weak contribution.
The promoter repeatedly describes the site as being bound by existing development. While there are existing houses and roads around parts of its perimeter, this description does not in my view adequately reflect the character of the land on the ground or its visual and physical relationship with the extensive open countryside immediately beyond.
The site remains an unmistakably open, undeveloped landscape forming part of the transition from the built-up edge of Macclesfield towards the countryside and higher land in the direction of Tegg's Nose.
2. Station proximity and realistic walking accessibility
The August 2026 NPPF also contains specific Green Belt provisions for certain residential and mixed-use development within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected railway station. For the purposes of paragraph GB7, the NPPF glossary describes reasonable walking distance as normally around 800 metres, or around a ten-minute walk where topography, route quality or other barriers would discourage people from walking 800 metres. It also states that, where only part of a site falls within the relevant distance, the provision applies only to that part.
The promoter states that Macclesfield railway station is 1.3 kilometres to the west and approximately 15 to 20 minutes on foot. On their face, both figures are materially greater than the NPPF benchmark described above. They should not be treated as establishing that the whole site satisfies the current station-related policy, especially given the steep changes in level and the need to use actual pedestrian routes and access points rather than straight-line distances.
I therefore ask the Council to measure and map the walking distance and journey time from the proposed access points and from different parts of the site, and to assess gradient, route quality, crossings and other barriers, before relying on any station-proximity argument in support of Green Belt release.
3. Historical Green Belt and site-assessment evidence
There is relevant historical evidence which I believe should also inform the new assessment.
Cheshire East's 2015 Green Belt Assessment records that approximately 5 hectares described as "Blakelow Gardens / land adjacent to Leadbeaters Reservoir, Macclesfield" had previously been specifically added to the Green Belt through the Macclesfield Local Plan process.
I would ask the Council to consider why this particular land was historically considered appropriate for inclusion within the Green Belt and whether the landscape and planning considerations which led to that decision remain relevant today.
Parts of the wider Blakelow Road area were also previously considered through Cheshire East's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as sites 4335, Land off Blakelow Road, and 3966, Land adjacent 80 Blakelow Road.
I appreciate that these historic site boundaries are smaller than, and are not identical to, the present CFS26 358 boundary. I therefore do not suggest that CFS26 358 has previously been refused planning permission or that the whole current site has previously been assessed.
The historic proformas for both sites display the status labels Not Suitable, Not Achievable and Not currently developable. The record for site 4335 is internally inconsistent because its proforma also contains a possible dwelling trajectory, whereas the main SHLAA summary table records zero supply. I therefore rely on this historic material only for the physical and environmental constraints it records, not as proof that development could never occur.
In particular, the assessment of site 3966 recorded a significant level difference across the land, walls and trees around the site, trees towards the reservoir, biodiversity considerations, potential need for a Protected Species Survey and the need to address greenfield surface-water runoff.
These earlier assessments demonstrate that a number of the physical and environmental issues now being raised have been recognised by the Council previously. The additional land incorporated within CFS26 358 should in turn receive its own fresh assessment rather than being assumed to inherit favourable conclusions from neighbouring or earlier sites.
4. Landscape, topography and countryside character
The physical topography of CFS26 358 is one of its most significant characteristics.
The fields immediately east and south-east of South Acre Drive rise very steeply towards Blakelow Road. The land also falls towards Leadbeaters Reservoir and contains substantial changes in level across the wider site.
The photographs accompanying this representation illustrate these changes in level far more clearly than an overhead plan. They also show that this is not vacant or degraded urban land. The landscape comprises grazing fields, rough grassland and scrub, mature trees, established vegetation and traditional dry-stone field boundaries.
The promoter itself acknowledges the level changes across the site.
Development of approximately 113 houses would require not only buildings but roads, drainage, lighting and other infrastructure across this sloping landscape. I therefore ask that the site-selection process includes a proper landscape and visual assessment addressing topography, views towards and from higher ground, the character of the existing settlement edge and the relationship of the site with the wider countryside towards Tegg's Nose and the Peak District foothills.
The assessment should consider the effect of the development as a whole, rather than simply whether individual houses could physically be fitted onto the land.
5. Tree Preservation Orders and mature trees
Cheshire East Council's own Tree Preservation Order mapping identifies numerous protected individual trees and protected tree groups within and immediately adjoining the northern part of CFS26 358, together with further mature trees and established vegetation throughout the site.
There are also six protected mature sycamores associated with the rear gardens of properties on South Acre Drive, including a substantial sycamore within my own garden immediately adjoining the fields.
The significance of the TPO constraint is reinforced by the promoter's own Site Promotion Report. It acknowledges that some protected trees would have to be removed to achieve its proposed northern access from Buxton Old Road and describes this removal as "unavoidable".
I believe this should be treated as a substantive site-selection and deliverability issue rather than being left entirely until a future planning application.
The Council's own adopted tree policies seek to retain and protect important trees and require development layouts to be informed by arboricultural assessment. I therefore ask that the full TPO constraints, root-protection areas, mature canopy, tree groups and connected hedgerow/tree corridors are properly mapped and assessed before determining whether this site is suitable for allocation.
6. Access, highways and heritage
The promoter proposes a northern vehicular access between numbers 3 and 7 Buxton Old Road. Its report says that this would require a partial break in the existing roadside wall and the unavoidable removal of protected trees.
The same report identifies two Grade II listed buildings to the north-east of the site. Although the promoter considers that any harm would be less than substantial and at the lower end, it also accepts that a future application would need to assess the effect of the development and the proposed access on those heritage assets and their setting.
These matters should not be assumed capable of satisfactory mitigation before the relevant evidence exists. Before selecting the site, the Council should independently assess access geometry and gradients, pedestrian and cycle connections, visibility and local road-network effects, together with the combined consequences for protected trees, the roadside wall and the setting of the listed buildings.
7. Ecology and habitat connectivity
I regularly observe numerous bats flying and feeding around our garden, the mature trees and the adjoining fields at dusk and in the early evening.
I do not claim that this establishes a bat roost in any particular tree. It does, however, provide direct local evidence that bats actively use this immediate area for foraging and/or commuting.
The site contains a connected network of mature trees, tree groups, hedgerows and other established vegetation, rough grassland, scrub and adjoining grazing land, with Leadbeaters Reservoir nearby.
The promoter's report currently provides only a high-level commitment to biodiversity net gain and acknowledges that further ecological assessment would be undertaken later.
I believe that the existing ecological value and connectivity of the land should be established before the principle of allocation is decided, rather than relying on the possibility of subsequent mitigation or off-site biodiversity compensation.
I also note that another local consultation representation has identified a seasonal toad migration route through these fields towards Leadbeaters Reservoir and states that Cheshire East Council has previously erected warning signs on Blakelow Road concerning toads crossing the road. I ask the Council to verify this through its own records and include amphibian migration and reservoir-related habitat connectivity within its ecological assessment.
I also note that another local resident, in published Cheshire East representations 1763 and 2000, reports the presence of at least one badger sett within the Blakelow Road fields. I have not personally verified the sett, but I ask the Council to check this through appropriate ecological survey and local records when assessing CFS26 358.
8. Hydrology, drainage, historic well and water-authority interests
The hydrology of the site also deserves detailed assessment.
Historic Ordnance Survey mapping records a well within the field between Blakelow Road and Leadbeaters Reservoir. I have historic mapping in my possession clearly showing this feature.
The site slopes substantially towards lower-lying land and the reservoir. The replacement of presently permeable grassland and scrub with roofs, roads, driveways and other hard surfaces would therefore alter surface-water behaviour.
I am not suggesting that the historic well itself prevents development, nor am I asserting that a particular drainage problem presently exists. I am asking that the site's groundwater, possible springs, surface-water pathways and relationship with Leadbeaters Reservoir are properly investigated before the land is considered suitable for allocation.
There is also a documented historic water-authority interest in part of the land. A Land Registry register in my possession records a 1982 conveyance from North West Water Authority and states that the conveyance contains restrictive covenants and reserves rights.
I recognise that these rights may not prevent development, but their nature should be established, together with any successor United Utilities rights, easements, water infrastructure or access requirements affecting the land.
I would be happy to provide copies of the historic Land Registry material and mapping if these would assist the Council.
9. Existing land use
The present land use should also be recorded accurately.
The promoter's own report describes the southern half of the site as grassland, the majority of which has recently been used for livestock grazing, while describing the northern parts as more scrub in character.
This accords with my own observations. Sheep and cattle regularly graze the adjoining fields, while the field immediately behind my property is rougher and contains longer grass, scrub, bramble and mature vegetation.
This mixture of grazing land and less intensively managed habitat contributes both to the rural character of the site and potentially to its ecological value. The agricultural land classification and existing habitat value should therefore form part of the site assessment.
10. Cumulative assessment before allocation
My concern is not simply the effect that development might have upon the outlook from my own property.
It arises from the combination of:
- the existing Green Belt designation and previous Green Belt evidence;
- the site's open and undeveloped character;
- the steep and visually prominent topography;
- its relationship with the wider countryside;
- numerous protected and mature trees;
- the promoter's acknowledged need to remove protected trees;
- connected hedgerows, scrub and wildlife habitat;
- regularly observed bat activity;
- reported amphibian migration towards Leadbeaters Reservoir;
- the reported presence of at least one badger sett within the Blakelow Road fields;
- the need for realistic, access-point-specific walking and transport evidence;
- the proposed northern access, roadside-wall break and effects on two nearby Grade II listedbuildings;
- livestock grazing and agricultural use;
- traditional stone field boundaries;
- the historic mapped well;
- potential groundwater and surface-water issues;
- historic North West Water Authority rights; and
- the physical relationship with Leadbeaters Reservoir.
I recognise that Cheshire East has a substantial housing requirement and must identify sufficient land to meet future needs. My representation is therefore not an objection to new housing in principle.
However, the current NPPF requires Green Belt boundary changes to be properly evidenced and justified and requires reasonable alternatives to be examined, including making as much use as possible of suitable previously developed and underutilised land, optimising development densities and assessing whether sufficient suitable sites can be identified outside the Green Belt.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the site-assessment methodology for the new Local Plan properly addresses all of the matters above and that CFS26 358 is not selected for housing allocation unless the Council's own up-to-date evidence demonstrates that Green Belt release is justified and that the site's cumulative landscape, ecological, arboricultural, hydrological and other constraints can satisfactorily be overcome.
If CFS26 358 progresses to the Plan Content and Evidence stage, I would ask that the Council publishes the detailed Green Belt/grey-belt assessment, station-accessibility and transport evidence, landscape and heritage evidence, ecological and arboricultural evidence and drainage/hydrological assessment so residents can make informed representations at that stage.
Please also retain this representation and its accompanying evidence for consideration when CFS26 358 is subsequently assessed.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that this email and its attachment(s) have been recorded as my formal response to the New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

Apologies for one further question, but I have continued reviewing Cheshire East Council’s published evidence.
Could you please confirm whether historic SHLAA site 3275, Land adjoining Lark Hall, Macclesfield (also consulted upon in 2013 as Site W), has been resubmitted, remains available or is otherwise expected to be considered through the emerging Local Plan’s land availability and site assessment process?
I appreciate that CFD26 358 appears on the current online map because it was submitted by Quod Ltd on behalf of Wain Homes North West and Teakwood Developments, rather than because it has been selected or preferred by the Council. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to understand whether site 3275, or any appropriate part of it, will be considered as a reasonable alternative when sites around Macclesfield, including CFD26 358, are assessed.
CEC’s January 2013 SHLAA assessment described site 3275 as a 7.89-hectare greenfield site with an indicative capacity of 237 dwellings. It assessed the site at that time as “suitable - with policy change”, “available”, “achievable” and “developable”, while also identifying Green Belt and other environmental constraints.
Although the assessment recorded site 3275 as undulating, from the general topography and from having walked along Higher Fence Road in the past, it appears that at least parts of the land may be less steep than CFD26 358. I therefore hope that any comparative assessment will explain transparently why particular sites are or are not progressed, taking account of topography, landscape, ecology, green infrastructure, access and all other relevant constraints.
For ease of reference, I have attached CEC’s January 2013 assessment page showing the official boundary of site 3275.
As the scoping consultation closes at 5pm on 1 September 2026, I would be grateful if this email and attachment could be added as a supplementary observation to my earlier representation and placed before the Strategic Planning Team for consideration.