Local plan scoping consultation

Please accept this email and the attached Strong Objection as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

I strongly object to the potential allocation for substantial residential development of land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, together with any overlapping or successor submissions. As I refer to [REDACTED] clearly argued objection, I also attach that.

My principal concerns are:

Macclesfield already has a substantial pipeline of permitted and allocated housing. A shortage in the five-year deliverable supply does not necessarily demonstrate a shortage of housing land. Before releasing further countryside, Cheshire East should establish why existing sites are not being built and occupied more rapidly and whether allocating still more land would actually increase delivery.

Housing should be related to employment. There is a pronounced outward commuter flow from Macclesfield towards Greater Manchester and other employment centres. Living immediately adjacent to the A537 west of Macclesfield, we see a striking tidal pattern every working day - away from Macclesfield in the morning and back towards it in the evening. Further large-scale housing without corresponding local employment will increase congestion and car dependency.

Brownfield and urban alternatives should be properly considered first. There is very substantial housing capacity on previously developed land closer to major employment centres. The Council should demonstrate why additional greenfield/Green Belt development around Macclesfield is more sustainable than reasonable brownfield and regeneration alternatives.

The cumulative infrastructure impact must be assessed, including roads, schools, healthcare, public transport, electricity, water, sewage and drainage, together with housing already permitted or under construction.

There are significant environmental constraints in this particular area. The former Sandy Lane/Whirley Quarry landfill is documented, and the potential implications for landfill gas, leachate, groundwater, contamination and adjoining residential land require proper investigation before allocation. The surrounding area also contains ecologically important habitat.

These sites must be considered cumulatively. Taken together, they could represent a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley, affecting Green Belt purposes, settlement separation, landscape, agricultural land, ecology and the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall.

I recognise the need for additional housing. My objection is not to necessary housing, but to the assumption that releasing further valuable countryside around Macclesfield is necessarily the appropriate or most sustainable way to provide it.

The fundamental questions should be how much genuinely additional housing land is required, why the substantial existing housing pipeline is not delivering more rapidly, where the occupants of new housing will work, and whether the same housing need could be met more sustainably on brownfield and urban land closer to employment and public transport.

I would be grateful if this email and the attached Strong Objection could be formally recorded against CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557, where these remain the relevant references, and against any overlapping or successor submissions affecting the same land.