Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 3084

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

Henbury Parish Council strongly support the preservation of the Greenbelt. After the adoption of the last Local Plan and resultant allocation/development of sites to the west of Macclesfield, the green gap between Macclesfield and Henbury has now been significantly reduced. There should be no further erosion of this gap or Henbury will simply become a Macclesfield suburb. Greybelt definition should be strongly resisted in such cases. The current Greenbelt boundary should be considered strongly defensible, as stated.

Comment

Representation ID: 3085

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

We agree that brownfield development should be prioritised, while accepting that in some cases brownfield sites can offer the development/enhancement of green/natural spaces in urban environments.

Comment

Representation ID: 3086

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

The Supplementary Planning Documents should recognise the biodiversity crisis and climate emergency that we currently face. Biodiversity and peatland protection should be mandated in these.

Comment

Representation ID: 3087

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

There should be no reduction in designated areas to suit the inclusion of particular sites in the Local Plan, as happened in the previous Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 3088

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

The retention of green spaces and the protection/enhancement of the natural environment is critical to ensure that the Plan does not contribute further to the biodiversity crisis. This should be measurable and demonstrable.

Comment

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

Countryside development should not be contrary to the LNRS and should not involve development on peatlands or other irreplaceable habitats.

Comment

Representation ID: 3090

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

We are aware of issues with water distribution in the Macclesfield area in recent years, leading to the requirement for tankers to fill gaps. This is not sustainable and clearly there is a risk that further development in the area will exacerbate the problem. We request that the allowed development level is constrained accordingly to suit the available supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 3091

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

While it is laudable that the viability of town centres is a key consideration, serious thought needs to be given to their accessibility. From the Henbury perspective, Macclesfield is clearly the local town but access via the difficult A537 and limited sustainable transport availability may contribute to a reluctance to visit the town at times, with alternative options chosen. The transport needs of outlying populations, such as Henbury, must be addressed, or the situation will continue to degrade as further development places additional strain on the already-struggling transport network.

Comment

Representation ID: 3092

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

CEC should have its own policy on peat extraction and not be dependent on national policy. This would ensure that, should a change in government policy open up the possibility of peat extraction, CEC can resist the change as a result of having its own policy of leaving all peatlands undisturbed, either by extraction or development. In our climate emergency there is no excuse for peatland development.

Comment

Representation ID: 3093

Received: 28/08/2026

Respondent: Henbury Parish Council

The additional requirements of new developments must be fully understood and mitigated for, in a timely manner. Experiences with Weaver Green, originally in Henbury, were not positive - with impacts on the local road network including the saga of the Broken Cross junction redesign, which remains a safety concern.