Local plan scoping consultation

I am a resident of Pott Shrigley, Macclesfield and therefore have a close personal interest in the development of the Local Plan. I lived for six decades in various parts of Greater Manchester, moving to Cheshire East in 2020 with the specific intention of living out my days in a more peaceful rural environment.

This is my response to the Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am conscious that the authority is under considerable pressure from the government regarding the provision of new housing. However, I do hope that the lessons of Cheshire East’s input into the Adlington New Town debacle have been learned - in particular, that the views and concerns of local residents should be carefully considered, and given considerable weight.

This part of Cheshire East, between Poynton and Macclesfield, is largely Green Belt land. Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas, and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another - two of the three purposes of the Green Belt - could hardly be more clearly met by preserving this. While the area may contain small pockets of what might now be considered grey belt, these certainly do not lend themselves to major development. Brownfield sites must exist, particularly around Macclesfield, that offer more potential; not to mention already approved planning permissions which have not yet been acted upon. It is essential that the Local Plan fully exhausts all these alternatives to Green Belt development.

The Local Plan must also consider the cumulative impact of developments in close proximity to each other, for example the Woodford development and smaller proposals around Poynton which could eventually merge and place excessive pressure on already strained infrastructure. Provision of schools, medical facilities, water supplies and drainage systems, to mention just some obvious infrastructure needs, should precede final decisions on house building. The Local Plan cannot afford to leave such provision to developers, or the private sector more generally.

Road and public transport issues must be the subject of realistic consideration. Adlington station, for example, being on the West Coast mainline, has extremely limited capacity for local services even if new homes were to be built within walking distance. It is ludicrously unrealistic to assume that private car use will be reduced without a comprehensive, affordable and reliable public transport network in place; rather, it will grow exponentially. The transport network is already under intense pressure.

The Local Plan must take a holistic view to the infrastructure and transport issues.

One of the more risible elements of the Adlington New Town proposal was that a serious number of the proposed 20,000 new homes would be “affordable”. Selling houses at least 20% below local market value - or whatever new definition the government might announce - only makes such houses truly affordable if local values are relatively low in the first place. Houses build in desirable rural locations will always make for higher market values becoming entrenched.

So new homes built in relatively affluent Green Belt areas will not attract first time buyers who rely on public transport; they will become dormitories for larger centres, bought by two (or three) car owning families. This is not the way to meet the nation’s housing needs, and it is vital for the Local Plan to face up to this reality.

My final point is that the Green Belt land in my area supports numerous farms which are a vital link in the food supply chain. Again, the Adlington New Town proposal, among its myriad faults, failed to recognise the decimation of this farming infrastructure that would follow from the construction of large numbers of houses.

I can well imagine that in the current climate the need to protect wildlife, ancient hedgerows and woodland could end up being given lower priority than it in fact merits. However in a civilised country the benefits of respecting our fellow inhabitants of the planet should not be underestimated. Indeed, if (as should be the case) brownfield sites are prioritised, the countryside will continue to provide an essential environment for an increased number of Cheshire East residents to enjoy leisure activities involving an escape from more urban developments. The opportunity to exploit the countryside should focus on potential physical and mental health benefits through recreational activities, rather than housing. When these opportunities are gone, they will not - and cannot - be replaced.

I hope the issues I have raised will be considered carefully, and given the weight they deserve, in the development of the Local Plan.