Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing in response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026.
My comments concern the extensive areas of land submitted for possible housing development around Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the western and northern edges of Macclesfield.
I understand that the areas shown on the council’s published site-submissions map are not currently proposed allocations or planning applications and that their inclusion confers no additional planning status. Nevertheless, the scale and proximity of these submissions are deeply concerning. I ask that my comments be formally recorded and considered when the council assesses these sites and develops its spatial strategy.
I have lived on [personal information redacted]. I therefore have considerable first-hand knowledge of local traffic, drainage, watercourses, wildlife and the character of this area.
I am also concerned by the precedent created by the following developments and decisions:
• 25/0210/OUT – land at Prestbury Road, involving up to 200 homes;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/25/3374597, through which the refusal of 25/0210/OUT was overturned;
• 17/4277M, 19/3097M, 18/0294M and 19/3098M – developments associated with the LPS18 allocation between Chelford Road and Whirley Road;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/21/3282191 relating to 19/3098M; and
• 22/4684M – a subsequent variation connected with 17/4277M.
Although these are separate cases, their effects must be considered alongside any additional sites proposed through the new Local Plan. The cumulative impact could be far greater than the impact presented by each scheme in isolation.
Traffic, congestion and road safety
The local road network is already heavily congested, particularly during the busiest periods when parents are driving their children to and from school, as there are more than four schools in close proximity to our house. Priory Lane and many surrounding roads were not designed to accommodate substantial additional traffic.
As a long-term resident living [personal information redacted], I regularly witness congestion and potentially hazardous conditions. Large-scale development across several nearby sites could generate thousands of additional daily vehicle movements.
The council must undertake a comprehensive, independent cumulative transport assessment covering all existing permissions, proposed allocations and submitted sites. Assessments should examine Priory Lane, Prestbury Road, Macclesfield Road, Sandy Lane, Whirley Road, Chelford Road and the wider routes through Broken Cross, Henbury, Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Healthcare and public services
Local services are already under significant pressure. We recently attended Macclesfield District General Hospital [personal information redacted]. GP practices, dentists, schools and other essential facilities should not be expected to absorb a major population increase without firm, funded and deliverable plans for additional capacity.
New housing must not be approved on the assumption that infrastructure will follow at some later date. Healthcare, education, public transport and community facilities must be planned, secured and delivered alongside development.
Loss of countryside and agricultural land
The fields and green spaces surrounding our settlements are a defining part of Cheshire’s identity and cultural landscape. They are not empty or unused land. They provide agricultural value, wildlife habitats, natural drainage, attractive views and places where residents can walk, exercise and enjoy peace and quiet.
Many people choose to live in Cheshire because of its countryside and quality of life, including people who moved here during and following the lockdown period. Once this land is covered by roads and housing, it cannot realistically be restored.
Grey-belt policy and transparency
I am deeply concerned about the way land previously understood to be protected Green Belt may now be presented as “grey belt” and potentially suitable for development.
Any assessment or reclassification must be transparent, evidence-based and subject to meaningful local consultation. Grey-belt policy must not become a shortcut through which valued countryside and agricultural land lose protection without residents understanding what is happening or having a proper opportunity to respond.
The decision concerning 25/0210/OUT demonstrates why the council must prepare particularly robust evidence on Green Belt function, landscape character, settlement gaps, infrastructure and cumulative development.
Wildlife and habitats
The land around these settlements forms a connected network of fields, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams and river corridors. Development could destroy habitats, sever wildlife routes and increase disturbance from traffic, construction, lighting, noise and domestic activity.
The assessment of potential sites must be supported by up-to-date and seasonal ecological surveys. These must consider the combined impact of development across the entire area, rather than assessing each parcel in isolation.
Existing trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams, wetlands and wildlife corridors should be protected through substantial buffer zones and enforceable long-term management arrangements.
Drainage, flooding and watercourses
Parts of this area already experience drainage problems. Replacing permeable fields with houses, roads and driveways will increase surface-water runoff and could worsen flooding both on and downstream from development sites.
The fields currently absorb rainfall and help regulate flows into local streams and the River Bollin system. The council should require independent drainage, groundwater and flood-risk assessments that account for climate change, existing drainage failures and the cumulative impact of all nearby development.
Sustainable drainage systems must not be treated as a paper exercise. Their capacity, maintenance, ownership and long-term effectiveness must be demonstrated. Construction must also be prevented from causing silt, pollution or other damage to streams and rivers.
Brownfield land should be prioritised
Suitable and deliverable brownfield sites should be identified and prioritised before valuable countryside and agricultural land are lost.
The council should publish clear evidence demonstrating which brownfield alternatives have been examined, how much housing they could accommodate and why the permanent loss of particular green sites is considered necessary.
Existing permissions and allocated sites should also be properly accounted for before further countryside is identified for development.
Protection of settlement gaps and local character
The open gaps between Macclesfield, Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury and Prestbury perform an essential function. They prevent neighbouring places from merging into continuous urban development and allow each settlement to retain its own character and identity.
Prestbury is a particularly attractive and historic village whose setting must be protected. Development spreading across the countryside between settlements would create urban sprawl and permanently harm their distinct identities.
The new Local Plan should include strong, enforceable policies protecting meaningful settlement gaps and preventing the gradual coalescence of Macclesfield with surrounding villages.
Building communities, not merely housing estates
Where housing is genuinely necessary, it must create sustainable communities rather than simply adding large estates.
Development must include adequate healthcare, schools, public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, accessible green space, play areas, local facilities and community meeting places. Infrastructure commitments must be specific, properly funded, legally secured and delivered at the appropriate stage.
Residents should not be left with increased traffic and pressure on services while promised facilities are delayed, reduced or never delivered.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the new Local Plan:
• assesses the combined effect of all permissions, potential allocations and submitted sites across this area;
• gives proper weight to the first-hand knowledge and views of local residents;
• prioritises suitable brownfield land and previously developed sites;
• protects agricultural land, wildlife corridors, watercourses and valued countryside;
• retains meaningful open gaps between Macclesfield and neighbouring settlements;
• requires infrastructure to be funded and delivered alongside housing;
• uses transparent and robust evidence when assessing Green Belt or possible grey-belt land;
• avoids allocating sites where development would worsen traffic, flooding or pressure on essential services; and
• provides residents with clear notification and meaningful opportunities to comment as individual sites are assessed.
Housing need is important, but it must be addressed through responsible and properly coordinated planning. It should not come at the cost of road safety, overstretched healthcare, functioning drainage systems, wildlife, productive countryside or the individual character of Cheshire’s communities.
These decisions could permanently alter this area. The people who live here must be heard before potential sites progress any further.
Please confirm that this email has been received and recorded as my formal response to the 2026 Local Plan scoping consultation. I would also like to be notified of future consultations concerning potential site allocations in Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the surrounding Macclesfield area.

I am writing in response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026.
My comments concern the extensive areas of land submitted for possible housing development around Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the western and northern edges of Macclesfield.
I understand that the areas shown on the council’s published site-submissions map are not currently proposed allocations or planning applications and that their inclusion confers no additional planning status. Nevertheless, the scale and proximity of these submissions are deeply concerning. I ask that my comments be formally recorded and considered when the council assesses these sites and develops its spatial strategy.
I have lived on [personal information redacted]. I therefore have considerable first-hand knowledge of local traffic, drainage, watercourses, wildlife and the character of this area.
I am also concerned by the precedent created by the following developments and decisions:
• 25/0210/OUT – land at Prestbury Road, involving up to 200 homes;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/25/3374597, through which the refusal of 25/0210/OUT was overturned;
• 17/4277M, 19/3097M, 18/0294M and 19/3098M – developments associated with the LPS18 allocation between Chelford Road and Whirley Road;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/21/3282191 relating to 19/3098M; and
• 22/4684M – a subsequent variation connected with 17/4277M.
Although these are separate cases, their effects must be considered alongside any additional sites proposed through the new Local Plan. The cumulative impact could be far greater than the impact presented by each scheme in isolation.
Traffic, congestion and road safety
The local road network is already heavily congested, particularly during the busiest periods when parents are driving their children to and from school, as there are more than four schools in close proximity to our house. Priory Lane and many surrounding roads were not designed to accommodate substantial additional traffic.
As a long-term resident living [personal information redacted], I regularly witness congestion and potentially hazardous conditions. Large-scale development across several nearby sites could generate thousands of additional daily vehicle movements.
The council must undertake a comprehensive, independent cumulative transport assessment covering all existing permissions, proposed allocations and submitted sites. Assessments should examine Priory Lane, Prestbury Road, Macclesfield Road, Sandy Lane, Whirley Road, Chelford Road and the wider routes through Broken Cross, Henbury, Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Healthcare and public services
Local services are already under significant pressure. We recently attended Macclesfield District General Hospital [personal information redacted]. GP practices, dentists, schools and other essential facilities should not be expected to absorb a major population increase without firm, funded and deliverable plans for additional capacity.
New housing must not be approved on the assumption that infrastructure will follow at some later date. Healthcare, education, public transport and community facilities must be planned, secured and delivered alongside development.
Loss of countryside and agricultural land
The fields and green spaces surrounding our settlements are a defining part of Cheshire’s identity and cultural landscape. They are not empty or unused land. They provide agricultural value, wildlife habitats, natural drainage, attractive views and places where residents can walk, exercise and enjoy peace and quiet.
Many people choose to live in Cheshire because of its countryside and quality of life, including people who moved here during and following the lockdown period. Once this land is covered by roads and housing, it cannot realistically be restored.
Grey-belt policy and transparency
I am deeply concerned about the way land previously understood to be protected Green Belt may now be presented as “grey belt” and potentially suitable for development.
Any assessment or reclassification must be transparent, evidence-based and subject to meaningful local consultation. Grey-belt policy must not become a shortcut through which valued countryside and agricultural land lose protection without residents understanding what is happening or having a proper opportunity to respond.
The decision concerning 25/0210/OUT demonstrates why the council must prepare particularly robust evidence on Green Belt function, landscape character, settlement gaps, infrastructure and cumulative development.
Wildlife and habitats
The land around these settlements forms a connected network of fields, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams and river corridors. Development could destroy habitats, sever wildlife routes and increase disturbance from traffic, construction, lighting, noise and domestic activity.
The assessment of potential sites must be supported by up-to-date and seasonal ecological surveys. These must consider the combined impact of development across the entire area, rather than assessing each parcel in isolation.
Existing trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams, wetlands and wildlife corridors should be protected through substantial buffer zones and enforceable long-term management arrangements.
Drainage, flooding and watercourses
Parts of this area already experience drainage problems. Replacing permeable fields with houses, roads and driveways will increase surface-water runoff and could worsen flooding both on and downstream from development sites.
The fields currently absorb rainfall and help regulate flows into local streams and the River Bollin system. The council should require independent drainage, groundwater and flood-risk assessments that account for climate change, existing drainage failures and the cumulative impact of all nearby development.
Sustainable drainage systems must not be treated as a paper exercise. Their capacity, maintenance, ownership and long-term effectiveness must be demonstrated. Construction must also be prevented from causing silt, pollution or other damage to streams and rivers.
Brownfield land should be prioritised
Suitable and deliverable brownfield sites should be identified and prioritised before valuable countryside and agricultural land are lost.
The council should publish clear evidence demonstrating which brownfield alternatives have been examined, how much housing they could accommodate and why the permanent loss of particular green sites is considered necessary.
Existing permissions and allocated sites should also be properly accounted for before further countryside is identified for development.
Protection of settlement gaps and local character
The open gaps between Macclesfield, Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury and Prestbury perform an essential function. They prevent neighbouring places from merging into continuous urban development and allow each settlement to retain its own character and identity.
Prestbury is a particularly attractive and historic village whose setting must be protected. Development spreading across the countryside between settlements would create urban sprawl and permanently harm their distinct identities.
The new Local Plan should include strong, enforceable policies protecting meaningful settlement gaps and preventing the gradual coalescence of Macclesfield with surrounding villages.
Building communities, not merely housing estates
Where housing is genuinely necessary, it must create sustainable communities rather than simply adding large estates.
Development must include adequate healthcare, schools, public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, accessible green space, play areas, local facilities and community meeting places. Infrastructure commitments must be specific, properly funded, legally secured and delivered at the appropriate stage.
Residents should not be left with increased traffic and pressure on services while promised facilities are delayed, reduced or never delivered.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the new Local Plan:
• assesses the combined effect of all permissions, potential allocations and submitted sites across this area;
• gives proper weight to the first-hand knowledge and views of local residents;
• prioritises suitable brownfield land and previously developed sites;
• protects agricultural land, wildlife corridors, watercourses and valued countryside;
• retains meaningful open gaps between Macclesfield and neighbouring settlements;
• requires infrastructure to be funded and delivered alongside housing;
• uses transparent and robust evidence when assessing Green Belt or possible grey-belt land;
• avoids allocating sites where development would worsen traffic, flooding or pressure on essential services; and
• provides residents with clear notification and meaningful opportunities to comment as individual sites are assessed.
Housing need is important, but it must be addressed through responsible and properly coordinated planning. It should not come at the cost of road safety, overstretched healthcare, functioning drainage systems, wildlife, productive countryside or the individual character of Cheshire’s communities.
These decisions could permanently alter this area. The people who live here must be heard before potential sites progress any further.
Please confirm that this email has been received and recorded as my formal response to the 2026 Local Plan scoping consultation. I would also like to be notified of future consultations concerning potential site allocations in Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the surrounding Macclesfield area.

I am writing in response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026.
My comments concern the extensive areas of land submitted for possible housing development around Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the western and northern edges of Macclesfield.
I understand that the areas shown on the council’s published site-submissions map are not currently proposed allocations or planning applications and that their inclusion confers no additional planning status. Nevertheless, the scale and proximity of these submissions are deeply concerning. I ask that my comments be formally recorded and considered when the council assesses these sites and develops its spatial strategy.
I have lived on [personal information redacted]. I therefore have considerable first-hand knowledge of local traffic, drainage, watercourses, wildlife and the character of this area.
I am also concerned by the precedent created by the following developments and decisions:
• 25/0210/OUT – land at Prestbury Road, involving up to 200 homes;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/25/3374597, through which the refusal of 25/0210/OUT was overturned;
• 17/4277M, 19/3097M, 18/0294M and 19/3098M – developments associated with the LPS18 allocation between Chelford Road and Whirley Road;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/21/3282191 relating to 19/3098M; and
• 22/4684M – a subsequent variation connected with 17/4277M.
Although these are separate cases, their effects must be considered alongside any additional sites proposed through the new Local Plan. The cumulative impact could be far greater than the impact presented by each scheme in isolation.
Traffic, congestion and road safety
The local road network is already heavily congested, particularly during the busiest periods when parents are driving their children to and from school, as there are more than four schools in close proximity to our house. Priory Lane and many surrounding roads were not designed to accommodate substantial additional traffic.
As a long-term resident living [personal information redacted], I regularly witness congestion and potentially hazardous conditions. Large-scale development across several nearby sites could generate thousands of additional daily vehicle movements.
The council must undertake a comprehensive, independent cumulative transport assessment covering all existing permissions, proposed allocations and submitted sites. Assessments should examine Priory Lane, Prestbury Road, Macclesfield Road, Sandy Lane, Whirley Road, Chelford Road and the wider routes through Broken Cross, Henbury, Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Healthcare and public services
Local services are already under significant pressure. We recently attended Macclesfield District General Hospital [personal information redacted]. GP practices, dentists, schools and other essential facilities should not be expected to absorb a major population increase without firm, funded and deliverable plans for additional capacity.
New housing must not be approved on the assumption that infrastructure will follow at some later date. Healthcare, education, public transport and community facilities must be planned, secured and delivered alongside development.
Loss of countryside and agricultural land
The fields and green spaces surrounding our settlements are a defining part of Cheshire’s identity and cultural landscape. They are not empty or unused land. They provide agricultural value, wildlife habitats, natural drainage, attractive views and places where residents can walk, exercise and enjoy peace and quiet.
Many people choose to live in Cheshire because of its countryside and quality of life, including people who moved here during and following the lockdown period. Once this land is covered by roads and housing, it cannot realistically be restored.
Grey-belt policy and transparency
I am deeply concerned about the way land previously understood to be protected Green Belt may now be presented as “grey belt” and potentially suitable for development.
Any assessment or reclassification must be transparent, evidence-based and subject to meaningful local consultation. Grey-belt policy must not become a shortcut through which valued countryside and agricultural land lose protection without residents understanding what is happening or having a proper opportunity to respond.
The decision concerning 25/0210/OUT demonstrates why the council must prepare particularly robust evidence on Green Belt function, landscape character, settlement gaps, infrastructure and cumulative development.
Wildlife and habitats
The land around these settlements forms a connected network of fields, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams and river corridors. Development could destroy habitats, sever wildlife routes and increase disturbance from traffic, construction, lighting, noise and domestic activity.
The assessment of potential sites must be supported by up-to-date and seasonal ecological surveys. These must consider the combined impact of development across the entire area, rather than assessing each parcel in isolation.
Existing trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams, wetlands and wildlife corridors should be protected through substantial buffer zones and enforceable long-term management arrangements.
Drainage, flooding and watercourses
Parts of this area already experience drainage problems. Replacing permeable fields with houses, roads and driveways will increase surface-water runoff and could worsen flooding both on and downstream from development sites.
The fields currently absorb rainfall and help regulate flows into local streams and the River Bollin system. The council should require independent drainage, groundwater and flood-risk assessments that account for climate change, existing drainage failures and the cumulative impact of all nearby development.
Sustainable drainage systems must not be treated as a paper exercise. Their capacity, maintenance, ownership and long-term effectiveness must be demonstrated. Construction must also be prevented from causing silt, pollution or other damage to streams and rivers.
Brownfield land should be prioritised
Suitable and deliverable brownfield sites should be identified and prioritised before valuable countryside and agricultural land are lost.
The council should publish clear evidence demonstrating which brownfield alternatives have been examined, how much housing they could accommodate and why the permanent loss of particular green sites is considered necessary.
Existing permissions and allocated sites should also be properly accounted for before further countryside is identified for development.
Protection of settlement gaps and local character
The open gaps between Macclesfield, Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury and Prestbury perform an essential function. They prevent neighbouring places from merging into continuous urban development and allow each settlement to retain its own character and identity.
Prestbury is a particularly attractive and historic village whose setting must be protected. Development spreading across the countryside between settlements would create urban sprawl and permanently harm their distinct identities.
The new Local Plan should include strong, enforceable policies protecting meaningful settlement gaps and preventing the gradual coalescence of Macclesfield with surrounding villages.
Building communities, not merely housing estates
Where housing is genuinely necessary, it must create sustainable communities rather than simply adding large estates.
Development must include adequate healthcare, schools, public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, accessible green space, play areas, local facilities and community meeting places. Infrastructure commitments must be specific, properly funded, legally secured and delivered at the appropriate stage.
Residents should not be left with increased traffic and pressure on services while promised facilities are delayed, reduced or never delivered.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the new Local Plan:
• assesses the combined effect of all permissions, potential allocations and submitted sites across this area;
• gives proper weight to the first-hand knowledge and views of local residents;
• prioritises suitable brownfield land and previously developed sites;
• protects agricultural land, wildlife corridors, watercourses and valued countryside;
• retains meaningful open gaps between Macclesfield and neighbouring settlements;
• requires infrastructure to be funded and delivered alongside housing;
• uses transparent and robust evidence when assessing Green Belt or possible grey-belt land;
• avoids allocating sites where development would worsen traffic, flooding or pressure on essential services; and
• provides residents with clear notification and meaningful opportunities to comment as individual sites are assessed.
Housing need is important, but it must be addressed through responsible and properly coordinated planning. It should not come at the cost of road safety, overstretched healthcare, functioning drainage systems, wildlife, productive countryside or the individual character of Cheshire’s communities.
These decisions could permanently alter this area. The people who live here must be heard before potential sites progress any further.
Please confirm that this email has been received and recorded as my formal response to the 2026 Local Plan scoping consultation. I would also like to be notified of future consultations concerning potential site allocations in Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the surrounding Macclesfield area.

I am writing in response to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation 2026.
My comments concern the extensive areas of land submitted for possible housing development around Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the western and northern edges of Macclesfield.
I understand that the areas shown on the council’s published site-submissions map are not currently proposed allocations or planning applications and that their inclusion confers no additional planning status. Nevertheless, the scale and proximity of these submissions are deeply concerning. I ask that my comments be formally recorded and considered when the council assesses these sites and develops its spatial strategy.
I have lived on [personal information redacted]. I therefore have considerable first-hand knowledge of local traffic, drainage, watercourses, wildlife and the character of this area.
I am also concerned by the precedent created by the following developments and decisions:
• 25/0210/OUT – land at Prestbury Road, involving up to 200 homes;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/25/3374597, through which the refusal of 25/0210/OUT was overturned;
• 17/4277M, 19/3097M, 18/0294M and 19/3098M – developments associated with the LPS18 allocation between Chelford Road and Whirley Road;
• appeal APP/R0660/W/21/3282191 relating to 19/3098M; and
• 22/4684M – a subsequent variation connected with 17/4277M.
Although these are separate cases, their effects must be considered alongside any additional sites proposed through the new Local Plan. The cumulative impact could be far greater than the impact presented by each scheme in isolation.
Traffic, congestion and road safety
The local road network is already heavily congested, particularly during the busiest periods when parents are driving their children to and from school, as there are more than four schools in close proximity to our house. Priory Lane and many surrounding roads were not designed to accommodate substantial additional traffic.
As a long-term resident living [personal information redacted], I regularly witness congestion and potentially hazardous conditions. Large-scale development across several nearby sites could generate thousands of additional daily vehicle movements.
The council must undertake a comprehensive, independent cumulative transport assessment covering all existing permissions, proposed allocations and submitted sites. Assessments should examine Priory Lane, Prestbury Road, Macclesfield Road, Sandy Lane, Whirley Road, Chelford Road and the wider routes through Broken Cross, Henbury, Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Healthcare and public services
Local services are already under significant pressure. We recently attended Macclesfield District General Hospital [personal information redacted]. GP practices, dentists, schools and other essential facilities should not be expected to absorb a major population increase without firm, funded and deliverable plans for additional capacity.
New housing must not be approved on the assumption that infrastructure will follow at some later date. Healthcare, education, public transport and community facilities must be planned, secured and delivered alongside development.
Loss of countryside and agricultural land
The fields and green spaces surrounding our settlements are a defining part of Cheshire’s identity and cultural landscape. They are not empty or unused land. They provide agricultural value, wildlife habitats, natural drainage, attractive views and places where residents can walk, exercise and enjoy peace and quiet.
Many people choose to live in Cheshire because of its countryside and quality of life, including people who moved here during and following the lockdown period. Once this land is covered by roads and housing, it cannot realistically be restored.
Grey-belt policy and transparency
I am deeply concerned about the way land previously understood to be protected Green Belt may now be presented as “grey belt” and potentially suitable for development.
Any assessment or reclassification must be transparent, evidence-based and subject to meaningful local consultation. Grey-belt policy must not become a shortcut through which valued countryside and agricultural land lose protection without residents understanding what is happening or having a proper opportunity to respond.
The decision concerning 25/0210/OUT demonstrates why the council must prepare particularly robust evidence on Green Belt function, landscape character, settlement gaps, infrastructure and cumulative development.
Wildlife and habitats
The land around these settlements forms a connected network of fields, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams and river corridors. Development could destroy habitats, sever wildlife routes and increase disturbance from traffic, construction, lighting, noise and domestic activity.
The assessment of potential sites must be supported by up-to-date and seasonal ecological surveys. These must consider the combined impact of development across the entire area, rather than assessing each parcel in isolation.
Existing trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams, wetlands and wildlife corridors should be protected through substantial buffer zones and enforceable long-term management arrangements.
Drainage, flooding and watercourses
Parts of this area already experience drainage problems. Replacing permeable fields with houses, roads and driveways will increase surface-water runoff and could worsen flooding both on and downstream from development sites.
The fields currently absorb rainfall and help regulate flows into local streams and the River Bollin system. The council should require independent drainage, groundwater and flood-risk assessments that account for climate change, existing drainage failures and the cumulative impact of all nearby development.
Sustainable drainage systems must not be treated as a paper exercise. Their capacity, maintenance, ownership and long-term effectiveness must be demonstrated. Construction must also be prevented from causing silt, pollution or other damage to streams and rivers.
Brownfield land should be prioritised
Suitable and deliverable brownfield sites should be identified and prioritised before valuable countryside and agricultural land are lost.
The council should publish clear evidence demonstrating which brownfield alternatives have been examined, how much housing they could accommodate and why the permanent loss of particular green sites is considered necessary.
Existing permissions and allocated sites should also be properly accounted for before further countryside is identified for development.
Protection of settlement gaps and local character
The open gaps between Macclesfield, Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury and Prestbury perform an essential function. They prevent neighbouring places from merging into continuous urban development and allow each settlement to retain its own character and identity.
Prestbury is a particularly attractive and historic village whose setting must be protected. Development spreading across the countryside between settlements would create urban sprawl and permanently harm their distinct identities.
The new Local Plan should include strong, enforceable policies protecting meaningful settlement gaps and preventing the gradual coalescence of Macclesfield with surrounding villages.
Building communities, not merely housing estates
Where housing is genuinely necessary, it must create sustainable communities rather than simply adding large estates.
Development must include adequate healthcare, schools, public transport, safe walking and cycling routes, accessible green space, play areas, local facilities and community meeting places. Infrastructure commitments must be specific, properly funded, legally secured and delivered at the appropriate stage.
Residents should not be left with increased traffic and pressure on services while promised facilities are delayed, reduced or never delivered.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to ensure that the new Local Plan:
• assesses the combined effect of all permissions, potential allocations and submitted sites across this area;
• gives proper weight to the first-hand knowledge and views of local residents;
• prioritises suitable brownfield land and previously developed sites;
• protects agricultural land, wildlife corridors, watercourses and valued countryside;
• retains meaningful open gaps between Macclesfield and neighbouring settlements;
• requires infrastructure to be funded and delivered alongside housing;
• uses transparent and robust evidence when assessing Green Belt or possible grey-belt land;
• avoids allocating sites where development would worsen traffic, flooding or pressure on essential services; and
• provides residents with clear notification and meaningful opportunities to comment as individual sites are assessed.
Housing need is important, but it must be addressed through responsible and properly coordinated planning. It should not come at the cost of road safety, overstretched healthcare, functioning drainage systems, wildlife, productive countryside or the individual character of Cheshire’s communities.
These decisions could permanently alter this area. The people who live here must be heard before potential sites progress any further.
Please confirm that this email has been received and recorded as my formal response to the 2026 Local Plan scoping consultation. I would also like to be notified of future consultations concerning potential site allocations in Broken Cross, Whirley, Henbury, Prestbury, Priory Lane, Sandy Lane and the surrounding Macclesfield area.