Local plan scoping consultation

Dear Strategic Planning Team,

I am writing to submit my representation on the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am a resident of Sutton, close to the southern and eastern edge of Macclesfield, and have lived in this area for many years. I am therefore commenting as someone who experiences the area on a daily basis and has seen how it has evolved over time.

I regularly use the local road network, public rights of way, footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes throughout Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and the surrounding countryside. As a keen cyclist and walker, I spend a significant amount of time travelling through these communities and the surrounding landscape. This has given me a detailed appreciation of the area's character, its importance for recreation and active travel, and the role that the surrounding countryside plays in maintaining the identity of these villages and the wider setting of Macclesfield.

The comments below are therefore based not only on planning policy but also on my direct experience of how the area functions, how local infrastructure is used and the cumulative effects that continued development has had on traffic, access to the countryside and the character of these communities.

I would be grateful if this email could be accepted as my overall representation to the consultation rather than as comments on individual sections of the consultation document.

Protecting the character of Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green

Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett derive much of their character and value from their distinct village identities, surrounding agricultural land, open countryside, landscape setting, access to nature and clear separation from the expanding urban area of Macclesfield.

My principal concern is that the new Local Plan should not regard the countryside surrounding these communities as the default location for accommodating future outward growth from Macclesfield.

The countryside between Macclesfield and its surrounding villages should not be regarded as undeveloped land awaiting a future use. It is already performing essential functions. It supports food production, biodiversity, flood management, carbon storage, public health, recreation, active travel, landscape character and the physical separation of communities.

It is therefore an important part of Cheshire East's natural infrastructure and should be planned for, protected and enhanced in the same way as other strategic infrastructure assets. Its value should be measured not by what could replace it, but by the many benefits it already provides.

Importantly, this countryside is not simply open land between settlements. It is an everyday public asset. Residents make extensive use of its network of footpaths, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes for recreation, exercise, commuting and access to the wider countryside. These routes make a significant contribution to public health, wellbeing and sustainable travel and should be recognised as an important part of the area's infrastructure.

The purpose of planning should not simply be to accommodate growth. It should also ensure that future generations inherit places that are at least as attractive, resilient and liveable as those enjoyed by current residents. That principle should be central to the preparation of the new Local Plan.

Brownfield first and urban regeneration

I strongly support a genuine brownfield and regeneration first approach.

I recognise that Cheshire East Council already maintains a statutory Brownfield Land Register, which identifies opportunities within Macclesfield including former mills, office buildings, commercial premises and other previously developed land.

However, this register is not intended to represent the full extent of the borough's urban capacity.

Before any Green Belt, agricultural land or open countryside is considered for development, the Council should publish a comprehensive urban capacity assessment that includes:

• Brownfield Land Register sites.

• Long-term vacant homes.

• Redundant warehouses and industrial premises.

• Underused office buildings.

• Vacant commercial premises.

• Upper floors above shops.

• Council-owned land.

• Appropriate town centre redevelopment opportunities.

• Stalled or expired planning permissions.

• Buildings suitable for conversion.

• Opportunities for land assembly and, where appropriate, the proportionate use of compulsory purchase powers to unlock long-term vacant or derelict sites.

The assessment should clearly distinguish between theoretical capacity, planning permissions already granted, sites under construction and genuinely deliverable future opportunities.

Only once these opportunities have been fully assessed and transparently evidenced should consideration be given to releasing agricultural land or countryside.

Green Belt

The existence of a housing requirement should not automatically constitute exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries.

If exceptional circumstances are claimed, the Council should demonstrate through published evidence that all realistic brownfield, regeneration, urban capacity and non-Green Belt alternatives have first been fully investigated.

The assessment of Green Belt or grey belt land should recognise the cumulative contribution that open land makes in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting the rural setting of villages.

Agricultural land

Agricultural land is a finite strategic resource and should be treated as such.

The Local Plan should give significant weight to:

• Food production.

• The viability of existing farming businesses.

• Agricultural land quality.

• Avoiding fragmentation of productive farmland.

• Soil health.

• Drainage and water management.

Agricultural land should not simply be viewed as land that is technically capable of accommodating development.

Infrastructure before development

The Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green area has already experienced significant housing growth over recent years.

Before any additional allocations are considered, the Council should undertake a cumulative assessment of:

• Highway capacity.

• Traffic congestion.

• Road condition and maintenance.

• Sewerage and wastewater infrastructure.

• Water supply.

• Gas and electricity networks.

• Digital infrastructure.

• School capacity.

• GP surgeries and healthcare provision.

• Public transport.

• Walking and cycling infrastructure.

Infrastructure should be demonstrated to have sufficient capacity before development is allocated, rather than improvements being promised afterwards.

Infrastructure providers should publish clear evidence identifying existing capacity, future requirements, funding arrangements and delivery timescales.

Walking, cycling and access to the countryside

Existing public rights of way, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes should be protected and enhanced.

Development should not reduce access to the countryside, increase danger for people walking or cycling, or diminish the enjoyment of these routes.

Walking and cycling improvements should complement the existing rural character of the area rather than urbanise it.

Landscape and biodiversity

The countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green forms an important part of the landscape setting of Macclesfield and the Peak District fringe.

The Local Plan should give substantial weight to protecting:

• Landscape character.

• Mature trees and hedgerows.

• Wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.

• Important views.

• Rural tranquillity.

• The transition between the urban area and open countryside.

Sustainability should not be measured solely by whether land is adjacent to an existing settlement. It should also consider the irreversible loss of agricultural land, natural capital, biodiversity, landscape quality, settlement identity and the long-term resilience of infrastructure.

Transparency of Call for Sites

I understand that land submitted through the 2024 and 2026 Call for Sites process has simply been put forward by landowners and developers for consideration and that these submissions do not represent proposed allocations or decisions by the Council.

For that reason I have deliberately avoided commenting on individual sites where the detailed evidence has not yet been published.

However, the existence of these submissions reinforces the importance of a transparent assessment process.

When site assessments are published, I ask the Council to provide, for every site affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield:

• Clear site boundaries.

• Site size.

• Proposed use and capacity.

• Green Belt status.

• Agricultural land classification.

• Existing land use.

• Landscape assessment.

• Ecology and biodiversity constraints.

• Highway and transport assessment.

• Infrastructure assessment.

• Public rights of way and active travel considerations.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Heritage constraints.

• Suitability, availability and deliverability assessments.

• The reasons why each site is progressed or rejected.

The Council should also publish a cumulative map showing existing allocations, completed developments, outstanding permissions and all submitted Call for Sites land so that residents can properly understand the overall impact of development around south and east Macclesfield rather than considering each site in isolation.

Settlement separation

I encourage the Council to assess whether local green gaps or settlement separation policies are appropriate around Macclesfield.

The distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett should be protected so that successive developments do not gradually erode the separation between these communities and Macclesfield.

Requested outcomes

I respectfully ask that the new Local Plan:

1. Prioritises regeneration and brownfield development before any greenfield expansion.

2. Publishes a comprehensive urban capacity assessment before considering Green Belt release.

3. Protects the distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett.

4. Assesses the need for local green gaps or settlement separation policies.

5. Gives significant weight to protecting productive agricultural land.

6. Undertakes cumulative infrastructure assessments before allocating further development.

7. Protects and enhances walking, cycling and public rights of way.

8. Gives substantial weight to landscape character, biodiversity and the setting of the Peak District fringe.

9. Publishes a locality-based schedule and map of all submitted sites affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield.

10. Publishes the evidence, methodology and scoring used to assess every submitted site.

11. Assesses the cumulative impact of all existing allocations, permissions, completed developments and new site submissions.

12. Gives residents and parish councils a meaningful opportunity to comment on individual site assessments before preferred allocations are selected.

13. Notifies residents registered for Local Plan updates and Sutton Parish Council when site assessments affecting this area are published.

Development should follow evidence, infrastructure capacity and regeneration opportunities, not convenience.

Once productive farmland, open countryside and the distinct separation between settlements have been lost, they cannot realistically be recreated. The decisions made through this Local Plan will shape this part of Cheshire East for generations.

I therefore urge the Council to place the long-term stewardship of our countryside, agricultural land, villages and communities at the heart of its strategy.

Protecting the countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that change is genuinely sustainable, proportionate and evidence-led, and that future generations inherit communities that are every bit as special, resilient and enjoyable as those we have the privilege of experiencing today.

Thank you for considering my representation. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response and notify me when future evidence, site assessments and draft allocations affecting the Macclesfield area are published.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Sidebotham

Dear Strategic Planning Team,

I am writing to submit my representation on the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am a resident of Sutton, close to the southern and eastern edge of Macclesfield, and have lived in this area for many years. I am therefore commenting as someone who experiences the area on a daily basis and has seen how it has evolved over time.

I regularly use the local road network, public rights of way, footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes throughout Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and the surrounding countryside. As a keen cyclist and walker, I spend a significant amount of time travelling through these communities and the surrounding landscape. This has given me a detailed appreciation of the area's character, its importance for recreation and active travel, and the role that the surrounding countryside plays in maintaining the identity of these villages and the wider setting of Macclesfield.

The comments below are therefore based not only on planning policy but also on my direct experience of how the area functions, how local infrastructure is used and the cumulative effects that continued development has had on traffic, access to the countryside and the character of these communities.

I would be grateful if this email could be accepted as my overall representation to the consultation rather than as comments on individual sections of the consultation document.

Protecting the character of Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green

Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett derive much of their character and value from their distinct village identities, surrounding agricultural land, open countryside, landscape setting, access to nature and clear separation from the expanding urban area of Macclesfield.

My principal concern is that the new Local Plan should not regard the countryside surrounding these communities as the default location for accommodating future outward growth from Macclesfield.

The countryside between Macclesfield and its surrounding villages should not be regarded as undeveloped land awaiting a future use. It is already performing essential functions. It supports food production, biodiversity, flood management, carbon storage, public health, recreation, active travel, landscape character and the physical separation of communities.

It is therefore an important part of Cheshire East's natural infrastructure and should be planned for, protected and enhanced in the same way as other strategic infrastructure assets. Its value should be measured not by what could replace it, but by the many benefits it already provides.

Importantly, this countryside is not simply open land between settlements. It is an everyday public asset. Residents make extensive use of its network of footpaths, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes for recreation, exercise, commuting and access to the wider countryside. These routes make a significant contribution to public health, wellbeing and sustainable travel and should be recognised as an important part of the area's infrastructure.

The purpose of planning should not simply be to accommodate growth. It should also ensure that future generations inherit places that are at least as attractive, resilient and liveable as those enjoyed by current residents. That principle should be central to the preparation of the new Local Plan.

Brownfield first and urban regeneration

I strongly support a genuine brownfield and regeneration first approach.

I recognise that Cheshire East Council already maintains a statutory Brownfield Land Register, which identifies opportunities within Macclesfield including former mills, office buildings, commercial premises and other previously developed land.

However, this register is not intended to represent the full extent of the borough's urban capacity.

Before any Green Belt, agricultural land or open countryside is considered for development, the Council should publish a comprehensive urban capacity assessment that includes:

• Brownfield Land Register sites.

• Long-term vacant homes.

• Redundant warehouses and industrial premises.

• Underused office buildings.

• Vacant commercial premises.

• Upper floors above shops.

• Council-owned land.

• Appropriate town centre redevelopment opportunities.

• Stalled or expired planning permissions.

• Buildings suitable for conversion.

• Opportunities for land assembly and, where appropriate, the proportionate use of compulsory purchase powers to unlock long-term vacant or derelict sites.

The assessment should clearly distinguish between theoretical capacity, planning permissions already granted, sites under construction and genuinely deliverable future opportunities.

Only once these opportunities have been fully assessed and transparently evidenced should consideration be given to releasing agricultural land or countryside.

Green Belt

The existence of a housing requirement should not automatically constitute exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries.

If exceptional circumstances are claimed, the Council should demonstrate through published evidence that all realistic brownfield, regeneration, urban capacity and non-Green Belt alternatives have first been fully investigated.

The assessment of Green Belt or grey belt land should recognise the cumulative contribution that open land makes in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting the rural setting of villages.

Agricultural land

Agricultural land is a finite strategic resource and should be treated as such.

The Local Plan should give significant weight to:

• Food production.

• The viability of existing farming businesses.

• Agricultural land quality.

• Avoiding fragmentation of productive farmland.

• Soil health.

• Drainage and water management.

Agricultural land should not simply be viewed as land that is technically capable of accommodating development.

Infrastructure before development

The Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green area has already experienced significant housing growth over recent years.

Before any additional allocations are considered, the Council should undertake a cumulative assessment of:

• Highway capacity.

• Traffic congestion.

• Road condition and maintenance.

• Sewerage and wastewater infrastructure.

• Water supply.

• Gas and electricity networks.

• Digital infrastructure.

• School capacity.

• GP surgeries and healthcare provision.

• Public transport.

• Walking and cycling infrastructure.

Infrastructure should be demonstrated to have sufficient capacity before development is allocated, rather than improvements being promised afterwards.

Infrastructure providers should publish clear evidence identifying existing capacity, future requirements, funding arrangements and delivery timescales.

Walking, cycling and access to the countryside

Existing public rights of way, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes should be protected and enhanced.

Development should not reduce access to the countryside, increase danger for people walking or cycling, or diminish the enjoyment of these routes.

Walking and cycling improvements should complement the existing rural character of the area rather than urbanise it.

Landscape and biodiversity

The countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green forms an important part of the landscape setting of Macclesfield and the Peak District fringe.

The Local Plan should give substantial weight to protecting:

• Landscape character.

• Mature trees and hedgerows.

• Wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.

• Important views.

• Rural tranquillity.

• The transition between the urban area and open countryside.

Sustainability should not be measured solely by whether land is adjacent to an existing settlement. It should also consider the irreversible loss of agricultural land, natural capital, biodiversity, landscape quality, settlement identity and the long-term resilience of infrastructure.

Transparency of Call for Sites

I understand that land submitted through the 2024 and 2026 Call for Sites process has simply been put forward by landowners and developers for consideration and that these submissions do not represent proposed allocations or decisions by the Council.

For that reason I have deliberately avoided commenting on individual sites where the detailed evidence has not yet been published.

However, the existence of these submissions reinforces the importance of a transparent assessment process.

When site assessments are published, I ask the Council to provide, for every site affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield:

• Clear site boundaries.

• Site size.

• Proposed use and capacity.

• Green Belt status.

• Agricultural land classification.

• Existing land use.

• Landscape assessment.

• Ecology and biodiversity constraints.

• Highway and transport assessment.

• Infrastructure assessment.

• Public rights of way and active travel considerations.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Heritage constraints.

• Suitability, availability and deliverability assessments.

• The reasons why each site is progressed or rejected.

The Council should also publish a cumulative map showing existing allocations, completed developments, outstanding permissions and all submitted Call for Sites land so that residents can properly understand the overall impact of development around south and east Macclesfield rather than considering each site in isolation.

Settlement separation

I encourage the Council to assess whether local green gaps or settlement separation policies are appropriate around Macclesfield.

The distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett should be protected so that successive developments do not gradually erode the separation between these communities and Macclesfield.

Requested outcomes

I respectfully ask that the new Local Plan:

1. Prioritises regeneration and brownfield development before any greenfield expansion.

2. Publishes a comprehensive urban capacity assessment before considering Green Belt release.

3. Protects the distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett.

4. Assesses the need for local green gaps or settlement separation policies.

5. Gives significant weight to protecting productive agricultural land.

6. Undertakes cumulative infrastructure assessments before allocating further development.

7. Protects and enhances walking, cycling and public rights of way.

8. Gives substantial weight to landscape character, biodiversity and the setting of the Peak District fringe.

9. Publishes a locality-based schedule and map of all submitted sites affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield.

10. Publishes the evidence, methodology and scoring used to assess every submitted site.

11. Assesses the cumulative impact of all existing allocations, permissions, completed developments and new site submissions.

12. Gives residents and parish councils a meaningful opportunity to comment on individual site assessments before preferred allocations are selected.

13. Notifies residents registered for Local Plan updates and Sutton Parish Council when site assessments affecting this area are published.

Development should follow evidence, infrastructure capacity and regeneration opportunities, not convenience.

Once productive farmland, open countryside and the distinct separation between settlements have been lost, they cannot realistically be recreated. The decisions made through this Local Plan will shape this part of Cheshire East for generations.

I therefore urge the Council to place the long-term stewardship of our countryside, agricultural land, villages and communities at the heart of its strategy.

Protecting the countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that change is genuinely sustainable, proportionate and evidence-led, and that future generations inherit communities that are every bit as special, resilient and enjoyable as those we have the privilege of experiencing today.

Thank you for considering my representation. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response and notify me when future evidence, site assessments and draft allocations affecting the Macclesfield area are published.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Sidebotham

Dear Strategic Planning Team,

I am writing to submit my representation on the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am a resident of Sutton, close to the southern and eastern edge of Macclesfield, and have lived in this area for many years. I am therefore commenting as someone who experiences the area on a daily basis and has seen how it has evolved over time.

I regularly use the local road network, public rights of way, footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes throughout Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and the surrounding countryside. As a keen cyclist and walker, I spend a significant amount of time travelling through these communities and the surrounding landscape. This has given me a detailed appreciation of the area's character, its importance for recreation and active travel, and the role that the surrounding countryside plays in maintaining the identity of these villages and the wider setting of Macclesfield.

The comments below are therefore based not only on planning policy but also on my direct experience of how the area functions, how local infrastructure is used and the cumulative effects that continued development has had on traffic, access to the countryside and the character of these communities.

I would be grateful if this email could be accepted as my overall representation to the consultation rather than as comments on individual sections of the consultation document.

Protecting the character of Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green

Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett derive much of their character and value from their distinct village identities, surrounding agricultural land, open countryside, landscape setting, access to nature and clear separation from the expanding urban area of Macclesfield.

My principal concern is that the new Local Plan should not regard the countryside surrounding these communities as the default location for accommodating future outward growth from Macclesfield.

The countryside between Macclesfield and its surrounding villages should not be regarded as undeveloped land awaiting a future use. It is already performing essential functions. It supports food production, biodiversity, flood management, carbon storage, public health, recreation, active travel, landscape character and the physical separation of communities.

It is therefore an important part of Cheshire East's natural infrastructure and should be planned for, protected and enhanced in the same way as other strategic infrastructure assets. Its value should be measured not by what could replace it, but by the many benefits it already provides.

Importantly, this countryside is not simply open land between settlements. It is an everyday public asset. Residents make extensive use of its network of footpaths, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes for recreation, exercise, commuting and access to the wider countryside. These routes make a significant contribution to public health, wellbeing and sustainable travel and should be recognised as an important part of the area's infrastructure.

The purpose of planning should not simply be to accommodate growth. It should also ensure that future generations inherit places that are at least as attractive, resilient and liveable as those enjoyed by current residents. That principle should be central to the preparation of the new Local Plan.

Brownfield first and urban regeneration

I strongly support a genuine brownfield and regeneration first approach.

I recognise that Cheshire East Council already maintains a statutory Brownfield Land Register, which identifies opportunities within Macclesfield including former mills, office buildings, commercial premises and other previously developed land.

However, this register is not intended to represent the full extent of the borough's urban capacity.

Before any Green Belt, agricultural land or open countryside is considered for development, the Council should publish a comprehensive urban capacity assessment that includes:

• Brownfield Land Register sites.

• Long-term vacant homes.

• Redundant warehouses and industrial premises.

• Underused office buildings.

• Vacant commercial premises.

• Upper floors above shops.

• Council-owned land.

• Appropriate town centre redevelopment opportunities.

• Stalled or expired planning permissions.

• Buildings suitable for conversion.

• Opportunities for land assembly and, where appropriate, the proportionate use of compulsory purchase powers to unlock long-term vacant or derelict sites.

The assessment should clearly distinguish between theoretical capacity, planning permissions already granted, sites under construction and genuinely deliverable future opportunities.

Only once these opportunities have been fully assessed and transparently evidenced should consideration be given to releasing agricultural land or countryside.

Green Belt

The existence of a housing requirement should not automatically constitute exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries.

If exceptional circumstances are claimed, the Council should demonstrate through published evidence that all realistic brownfield, regeneration, urban capacity and non-Green Belt alternatives have first been fully investigated.

The assessment of Green Belt or grey belt land should recognise the cumulative contribution that open land makes in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting the rural setting of villages.

Agricultural land

Agricultural land is a finite strategic resource and should be treated as such.

The Local Plan should give significant weight to:

• Food production.

• The viability of existing farming businesses.

• Agricultural land quality.

• Avoiding fragmentation of productive farmland.

• Soil health.

• Drainage and water management.

Agricultural land should not simply be viewed as land that is technically capable of accommodating development.

Infrastructure before development

The Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green area has already experienced significant housing growth over recent years.

Before any additional allocations are considered, the Council should undertake a cumulative assessment of:

• Highway capacity.

• Traffic congestion.

• Road condition and maintenance.

• Sewerage and wastewater infrastructure.

• Water supply.

• Gas and electricity networks.

• Digital infrastructure.

• School capacity.

• GP surgeries and healthcare provision.

• Public transport.

• Walking and cycling infrastructure.

Infrastructure should be demonstrated to have sufficient capacity before development is allocated, rather than improvements being promised afterwards.

Infrastructure providers should publish clear evidence identifying existing capacity, future requirements, funding arrangements and delivery timescales.

Walking, cycling and access to the countryside

Existing public rights of way, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes should be protected and enhanced.

Development should not reduce access to the countryside, increase danger for people walking or cycling, or diminish the enjoyment of these routes.

Walking and cycling improvements should complement the existing rural character of the area rather than urbanise it.

Landscape and biodiversity

The countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green forms an important part of the landscape setting of Macclesfield and the Peak District fringe.

The Local Plan should give substantial weight to protecting:

• Landscape character.

• Mature trees and hedgerows.

• Wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.

• Important views.

• Rural tranquillity.

• The transition between the urban area and open countryside.

Sustainability should not be measured solely by whether land is adjacent to an existing settlement. It should also consider the irreversible loss of agricultural land, natural capital, biodiversity, landscape quality, settlement identity and the long-term resilience of infrastructure.

Transparency of Call for Sites

I understand that land submitted through the 2024 and 2026 Call for Sites process has simply been put forward by landowners and developers for consideration and that these submissions do not represent proposed allocations or decisions by the Council.

For that reason I have deliberately avoided commenting on individual sites where the detailed evidence has not yet been published.

However, the existence of these submissions reinforces the importance of a transparent assessment process.

When site assessments are published, I ask the Council to provide, for every site affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield:

• Clear site boundaries.

• Site size.

• Proposed use and capacity.

• Green Belt status.

• Agricultural land classification.

• Existing land use.

• Landscape assessment.

• Ecology and biodiversity constraints.

• Highway and transport assessment.

• Infrastructure assessment.

• Public rights of way and active travel considerations.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Heritage constraints.

• Suitability, availability and deliverability assessments.

• The reasons why each site is progressed or rejected.

The Council should also publish a cumulative map showing existing allocations, completed developments, outstanding permissions and all submitted Call for Sites land so that residents can properly understand the overall impact of development around south and east Macclesfield rather than considering each site in isolation.

Settlement separation

I encourage the Council to assess whether local green gaps or settlement separation policies are appropriate around Macclesfield.

The distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett should be protected so that successive developments do not gradually erode the separation between these communities and Macclesfield.

Requested outcomes

I respectfully ask that the new Local Plan:

1. Prioritises regeneration and brownfield development before any greenfield expansion.

2. Publishes a comprehensive urban capacity assessment before considering Green Belt release.

3. Protects the distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett.

4. Assesses the need for local green gaps or settlement separation policies.

5. Gives significant weight to protecting productive agricultural land.

6. Undertakes cumulative infrastructure assessments before allocating further development.

7. Protects and enhances walking, cycling and public rights of way.

8. Gives substantial weight to landscape character, biodiversity and the setting of the Peak District fringe.

9. Publishes a locality-based schedule and map of all submitted sites affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield.

10. Publishes the evidence, methodology and scoring used to assess every submitted site.

11. Assesses the cumulative impact of all existing allocations, permissions, completed developments and new site submissions.

12. Gives residents and parish councils a meaningful opportunity to comment on individual site assessments before preferred allocations are selected.

13. Notifies residents registered for Local Plan updates and Sutton Parish Council when site assessments affecting this area are published.

Development should follow evidence, infrastructure capacity and regeneration opportunities, not convenience.

Once productive farmland, open countryside and the distinct separation between settlements have been lost, they cannot realistically be recreated. The decisions made through this Local Plan will shape this part of Cheshire East for generations.

I therefore urge the Council to place the long-term stewardship of our countryside, agricultural land, villages and communities at the heart of its strategy.

Protecting the countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that change is genuinely sustainable, proportionate and evidence-led, and that future generations inherit communities that are every bit as special, resilient and enjoyable as those we have the privilege of experiencing today.

Thank you for considering my representation. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response and notify me when future evidence, site assessments and draft allocations affecting the Macclesfield area are published.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Sidebotham

Dear Strategic Planning Team,

I am writing to submit my representation on the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I am a resident of Sutton, close to the southern and eastern edge of Macclesfield, and have lived in this area for many years. I am therefore commenting as someone who experiences the area on a daily basis and has seen how it has evolved over time.

I regularly use the local road network, public rights of way, footpaths, bridleways and cycle routes throughout Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and the surrounding countryside. As a keen cyclist and walker, I spend a significant amount of time travelling through these communities and the surrounding landscape. This has given me a detailed appreciation of the area's character, its importance for recreation and active travel, and the role that the surrounding countryside plays in maintaining the identity of these villages and the wider setting of Macclesfield.

The comments below are therefore based not only on planning policy but also on my direct experience of how the area functions, how local infrastructure is used and the cumulative effects that continued development has had on traffic, access to the countryside and the character of these communities.

I would be grateful if this email could be accepted as my overall representation to the consultation rather than as comments on individual sections of the consultation document.

Protecting the character of Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green

Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett derive much of their character and value from their distinct village identities, surrounding agricultural land, open countryside, landscape setting, access to nature and clear separation from the expanding urban area of Macclesfield.

My principal concern is that the new Local Plan should not regard the countryside surrounding these communities as the default location for accommodating future outward growth from Macclesfield.

The countryside between Macclesfield and its surrounding villages should not be regarded as undeveloped land awaiting a future use. It is already performing essential functions. It supports food production, biodiversity, flood management, carbon storage, public health, recreation, active travel, landscape character and the physical separation of communities.

It is therefore an important part of Cheshire East's natural infrastructure and should be planned for, protected and enhanced in the same way as other strategic infrastructure assets. Its value should be measured not by what could replace it, but by the many benefits it already provides.

Importantly, this countryside is not simply open land between settlements. It is an everyday public asset. Residents make extensive use of its network of footpaths, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes for recreation, exercise, commuting and access to the wider countryside. These routes make a significant contribution to public health, wellbeing and sustainable travel and should be recognised as an important part of the area's infrastructure.

The purpose of planning should not simply be to accommodate growth. It should also ensure that future generations inherit places that are at least as attractive, resilient and liveable as those enjoyed by current residents. That principle should be central to the preparation of the new Local Plan.

Brownfield first and urban regeneration

I strongly support a genuine brownfield and regeneration first approach.

I recognise that Cheshire East Council already maintains a statutory Brownfield Land Register, which identifies opportunities within Macclesfield including former mills, office buildings, commercial premises and other previously developed land.

However, this register is not intended to represent the full extent of the borough's urban capacity.

Before any Green Belt, agricultural land or open countryside is considered for development, the Council should publish a comprehensive urban capacity assessment that includes:

• Brownfield Land Register sites.

• Long-term vacant homes.

• Redundant warehouses and industrial premises.

• Underused office buildings.

• Vacant commercial premises.

• Upper floors above shops.

• Council-owned land.

• Appropriate town centre redevelopment opportunities.

• Stalled or expired planning permissions.

• Buildings suitable for conversion.

• Opportunities for land assembly and, where appropriate, the proportionate use of compulsory purchase powers to unlock long-term vacant or derelict sites.

The assessment should clearly distinguish between theoretical capacity, planning permissions already granted, sites under construction and genuinely deliverable future opportunities.

Only once these opportunities have been fully assessed and transparently evidenced should consideration be given to releasing agricultural land or countryside.

Green Belt

The existence of a housing requirement should not automatically constitute exceptional circumstances for altering Green Belt boundaries.

If exceptional circumstances are claimed, the Council should demonstrate through published evidence that all realistic brownfield, regeneration, urban capacity and non-Green Belt alternatives have first been fully investigated.

The assessment of Green Belt or grey belt land should recognise the cumulative contribution that open land makes in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting the rural setting of villages.

Agricultural land

Agricultural land is a finite strategic resource and should be treated as such.

The Local Plan should give significant weight to:

• Food production.

• The viability of existing farming businesses.

• Agricultural land quality.

• Avoiding fragmentation of productive farmland.

• Soil health.

• Drainage and water management.

Agricultural land should not simply be viewed as land that is technically capable of accommodating development.

Infrastructure before development

The Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green area has already experienced significant housing growth over recent years.

Before any additional allocations are considered, the Council should undertake a cumulative assessment of:

• Highway capacity.

• Traffic congestion.

• Road condition and maintenance.

• Sewerage and wastewater infrastructure.

• Water supply.

• Gas and electricity networks.

• Digital infrastructure.

• School capacity.

• GP surgeries and healthcare provision.

• Public transport.

• Walking and cycling infrastructure.

Infrastructure should be demonstrated to have sufficient capacity before development is allocated, rather than improvements being promised afterwards.

Infrastructure providers should publish clear evidence identifying existing capacity, future requirements, funding arrangements and delivery timescales.

Walking, cycling and access to the countryside

Existing public rights of way, bridleways, quiet lanes and cycle routes should be protected and enhanced.

Development should not reduce access to the countryside, increase danger for people walking or cycling, or diminish the enjoyment of these routes.

Walking and cycling improvements should complement the existing rural character of the area rather than urbanise it.

Landscape and biodiversity

The countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley and Lyme Green forms an important part of the landscape setting of Macclesfield and the Peak District fringe.

The Local Plan should give substantial weight to protecting:

• Landscape character.

• Mature trees and hedgerows.

• Wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.

• Important views.

• Rural tranquillity.

• The transition between the urban area and open countryside.

Sustainability should not be measured solely by whether land is adjacent to an existing settlement. It should also consider the irreversible loss of agricultural land, natural capital, biodiversity, landscape quality, settlement identity and the long-term resilience of infrastructure.

Transparency of Call for Sites

I understand that land submitted through the 2024 and 2026 Call for Sites process has simply been put forward by landowners and developers for consideration and that these submissions do not represent proposed allocations or decisions by the Council.

For that reason I have deliberately avoided commenting on individual sites where the detailed evidence has not yet been published.

However, the existence of these submissions reinforces the importance of a transparent assessment process.

When site assessments are published, I ask the Council to provide, for every site affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield:

• Clear site boundaries.

• Site size.

• Proposed use and capacity.

• Green Belt status.

• Agricultural land classification.

• Existing land use.

• Landscape assessment.

• Ecology and biodiversity constraints.

• Highway and transport assessment.

• Infrastructure assessment.

• Public rights of way and active travel considerations.

• Flood risk and drainage.

• Heritage constraints.

• Suitability, availability and deliverability assessments.

• The reasons why each site is progressed or rejected.

The Council should also publish a cumulative map showing existing allocations, completed developments, outstanding permissions and all submitted Call for Sites land so that residents can properly understand the overall impact of development around south and east Macclesfield rather than considering each site in isolation.

Settlement separation

I encourage the Council to assess whether local green gaps or settlement separation policies are appropriate around Macclesfield.

The distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett should be protected so that successive developments do not gradually erode the separation between these communities and Macclesfield.

Requested outcomes

I respectfully ask that the new Local Plan:

1. Prioritises regeneration and brownfield development before any greenfield expansion.

2. Publishes a comprehensive urban capacity assessment before considering Green Belt release.

3. Protects the distinct identities of Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett.

4. Assesses the need for local green gaps or settlement separation policies.

5. Gives significant weight to protecting productive agricultural land.

6. Undertakes cumulative infrastructure assessments before allocating further development.

7. Protects and enhances walking, cycling and public rights of way.

8. Gives substantial weight to landscape character, biodiversity and the setting of the Peak District fringe.

9. Publishes a locality-based schedule and map of all submitted sites affecting Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green, Gurnett and south-east Macclesfield.

10. Publishes the evidence, methodology and scoring used to assess every submitted site.

11. Assesses the cumulative impact of all existing allocations, permissions, completed developments and new site submissions.

12. Gives residents and parish councils a meaningful opportunity to comment on individual site assessments before preferred allocations are selected.

13. Notifies residents registered for Local Plan updates and Sutton Parish Council when site assessments affecting this area are published.

Development should follow evidence, infrastructure capacity and regeneration opportunities, not convenience.

Once productive farmland, open countryside and the distinct separation between settlements have been lost, they cannot realistically be recreated. The decisions made through this Local Plan will shape this part of Cheshire East for generations.

I therefore urge the Council to place the long-term stewardship of our countryside, agricultural land, villages and communities at the heart of its strategy.

Protecting the countryside surrounding Sutton, Langley, Lyme Green and Gurnett is not about resisting change. It is about ensuring that change is genuinely sustainable, proportionate and evidence-led, and that future generations inherit communities that are every bit as special, resilient and enjoyable as those we have the privilege of experiencing today.

Thank you for considering my representation. I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt of this response and notify me when future evidence, site assessments and draft allocations affecting the Macclesfield area are published.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Sidebotham