Local plan scoping consultation
Search representations
Results for James Pickup search
New search New searchComment
Local plan scoping consultation
Identifying and assessing sites
Representation ID: 4871
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation objects to the progression of land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road (including Call for Sites references CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557) toward residential allocation unless Cheshire East demonstrates through transparent evidence that development is necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable. While supporting the need for housing where properly justified, the submission highlights significant constraints, including former landfill activity, contamination risks, ecology, Green Belt impacts, infrastructure capacity, transport, schools, healthcare, utilities, heritage and agricultural land. It emphasises the need for a comprehensive cumulative-impact assessment rather than considering individual sites in isolation.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Waste
Representation ID: 4872
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This submission highlights serious concerns regarding the former Sandy Lane/Whirley Quarry landfill and its implications for nearby housing proposals. It notes that Environment Agency records and Cheshire East's own SHLAA evidence identify landfill as a significant constraint. The representation calls for detailed investigation of landfill boundaries, waste types, contamination, groundwater, leachate and landfill-gas migration before any residential allocation is considered. It also requests examination of historical records to determine whether industrial wastes, including any associated with Ferodo/T&N asbestos-containing materials, were deposited there. Additionally, it stresses the site's ecological importance, particularly habitats supporting great crested newts and other wildlife.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Natural environment
Representation ID: 4873
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation emphasises the ecological importance of the wider Henbury and Whirley area, which contains an interconnected network of hedgerows, mature trees, woodland, ponds, grassland, pasture and scrub. These habitats support species such as bats, owls, badgers, breeding birds and great crested newts. It argues that site assessments should consider how the entire ecological network functions rather than focusing solely on individual fields. Particular concerns include impacts on bat commuting routes, bird foraging habitat, badger movement corridors and newt habitat. The submission calls for comprehensive ecological surveys at appropriate times and early enough to inform site selection and development capacity.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Housing
Representation ID: 4874
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation argues that Cheshire East must distinguish between the overall housing requirement and the amount of genuinely new land needed for development. Before releasing greenfield or Green Belt land, the Council should publish a transparent assessment accounting for existing permissions, allocations, brownfield sites, regeneration opportunities, urban capacity and windfall supply to identify any residual housing need. It also highlights the difference between housing land supply and actual delivery. While acknowledging the reported five-year housing supply shortfall, it requests evidence on permitted but unbuilt homes, build-out rates, site constraints and whether allocating additional land would genuinely increase housing completions.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Employment and economy
Representation ID: 4875
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation argues that housing growth around Macclesfield must be planned alongside employment provision. It notes that Cheshire East's evidence shows stronger-than-expected job growth, with significant employment land still available despite substantial development since 2010. The submission questions where future jobs associated with additional housing and population growth will be located and calls for transparent evidence on employment forecasts, sectors, land requirements and workplace locations. It also requests assessment of the relationship between new housing and employment opportunities, including likely commuting patterns. Without adequate local employment provision, the Plan should quantify impacts on congestion, public transport demand and car dependency.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Transport and infrastructure
Representation ID: 4876
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation argues that infrastructure impacts must be fully assessed before allocating major housing development. It calls for clear evidence on current and future school capacity, including plans, funding and delivery arrangements for any required expansions. Healthcare assessments should address GP capacity, hospital pressures and funded mitigation measures. The submission also seeks cumulative traffic modelling, evaluation of public transport alternatives and consideration of waste-collection capacity. It requests analysis of electricity network capacity, including requirements for EV charging and electrified heating, alongside assessments of water supply, wastewater treatment and sewer infrastructure. Surface-water drainage should be examined at catchment level, considering cumulative and climate-change impacts.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Green Belt
Representation ID: 4877
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Heritage
Representation ID: 4878
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
Comment
Local plan scoping consultation
Engagement Approach
Representation ID: 4879
Received: 27/08/2026
Respondent: James Pickup
This representation raises concerns about how the Local Plan scoping consultation has been communicated to residents living near concentrations of submitted sites. While acknowledging that the consultation has been publicised online and that formal planning application notification requirements do not apply at this stage, it argues that local residents should have received more prominent and targeted engagement given the potential scale and impact of the proposals. The submission asks Cheshire East to explain how nearby residents and parish organisations were informed, how engagement effectiveness was assessed, whether additional consultation or an extension will be considered, and how affected residents will be proactively notified during future allocation stages.
FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD
Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.
My objection
I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.
I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.
These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill
This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.
2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration
The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.
3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N
There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.
4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance
There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.
5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area
The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.
6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?
It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.
7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery
Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.
8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?
The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.
9. Infrastructure
The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.
10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape
Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall
Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.
12. Cumulative impact
This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification
I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion
I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.
