Macclesfield Full Report of Consultation Findings

Transcription

Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation
Contents
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy: Full Report of Consultation ............................................................. 1
Overall Response ................................................................................................................................ 3
Q1 Vision ............................................................................................................................................. 4
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Economic Prosperity ........................................................................... 28
Q2 Objectives and Strategy:Town Centre......................................................................................... 42
Do you agree or disagree with the Town Centre Objectives and Strategy as set out in the draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy? ........................................................................................................ 42
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Housing ............................................................................................... 63
Do you agree or disagree with the Housing Objectives and Strategy as set out in the draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy? ........................................................................................................ 63
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Access and Transport .......................................................................... 92
Do you agree or disagree with the Access and Transport Objectives and Strategy as set out in
the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy? ......................................................................................... 92
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Community Facilities ......................................................................... 111
Do you agree or disagree with the Community Facilities Objectives and Strategy as set out in the
draft Macclesfield Town Strategy? ............................................................................................. 111
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Environment...................................................................................... 122
Do you agree or disagree with the Environment Objectives and Strategy as set out in the draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy? ...................................................................................................... 122
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Deliverability ..................................................................................... 136
Do you agree or disagree with the Deliverability Objectives and Strategy as set out in the draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy? ...................................................................................................... 136
Q3. Potential Development Sites .................................................................................................... 143
Do you agree or disagree with the Potential Devleopment Sites in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 143
Q3. Site A: Land to north of Birtles Road (Housing)........................................................................ 144
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site A in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 144
Q3. Site B: Land west of Priory Lane (Housing)............................................................................... 155
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site B in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 155
Q3. Site C: Land north of Prestbury Lane (Housing) ....................................................................... 164
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site C in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 164
Q3. Site D: Land at Tytherington Business Park (Housing or Employment) ................................... 186
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site D in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 186
Q3. Site E: Land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road (Housing) ........................................ 195
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site E in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 195
Q3. Site F: Land east of London Road (Housing and/or Employment) ........................................... 216
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site E in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 216
Q3. Site G: Land at Gaw Lane End (Housing and/or Employment)................................................. 230
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site G in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 230
Q3. Site H: South Macclesfield Development Area (Mixed Use) .................................................... 242
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site H in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 242
Q3. Site I: Land between Congleton Road and Chelford Road (Mixed Use) ................................... 252
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site I in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 252
Q3. Site J: Land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road (Housing)........................................... 264
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site J in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 264
Q4. Additional Sites......................................................................................................................... 276
Are there any other sites that you would like to suggest for potential development? ............. 276
Are there any other sites that you would like to suggest for potential development? ............. 277
Q5. Town Areas ............................................................................................................................... 278
Do you agree or disagree with the town areas as set out in the draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy? ..................................................................................................................................... 278
Q5 Historic Market Quarter: ........................................................................................................... 279
Q5 Central Retail Quarter: .............................................................................................................. 285
Q5 Southern Silk Quarter: ............................................................................................................... 292
Q6. Town Centre Boundary......................................................................................................... 297
Do you agree or disagree with the potential change to the current town centre boundary? ... 297
Q7. Infrastructure Priorities ............................................................................................................ 304
What level of priority should be given to the Infrastructure Prioities identified in the draft
Macclesfield Town Stratgy? ........................................................................................................ 304
Q.8 Top Ten Infrastructure Priorities .............................................................................................. 314
Do you agree that the above list should be the top ten infrastructure priorities to be included
within the Macclesfield Town Strategy?......................................................................................... 314
Q.9 Any Other Infrastructure Priorities .......................................................................................... 324
Q.10 Additional Comments............................................................................................................. 336
Please include any comments that you would like to make on the draft Maccelsfield Town
Strategy below and indicate the chapter/paragraph number that your comments relate to. .. 336
Overall Response
A total of 689 representations were received on the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy
64% of these were submitted online via the consultation portal; 36% were either via letter or by email.
Web
Letter
Of the 567 respondents who entered their age details, 3% of people who took part in the
consultation were under the age of 26; 19.6% were aged 26 to 44; 49.3% were aged 45 to 65; and
27.7% were aged 66 and over.
Under 26
26 to 44
45 to 65
66 and over
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Overall Response
Page 3
Q1 Vision
Do you agree or disagree with the Vision as set out in the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy?
•
•
81% of respondents answered this question
Strongly Agree (12.5%); Agree (34.2%); Neither Agree or Disagree (20.6%); Disagree (12.2%);
Strongly Disagree (20.8%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Comments:
3500 houses is far far too many 500 -1000 max – due to effect on traffic, healthcare , pollution. I
support facilitating the transport links to Manchester Airport and the M6. I strongly disagree with
the two sites for housing C and D. D is brownfield and the Manchester road and the roads to
Bollington will not cope adequately with the extra traffic - speed limits have already been put in
place due to Tytherington School and Beech hall school safety. (Objective 5 and Potential sites)
A consultative procedure that is unneeded, unwanted and a waste of money.
A powerful vision, I hope it can become reality.
The Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy is not sustainable due to its aspiration to place large housing
developments well outside the town, thereby ensuring large scale travel demand. The strategy has
not sought to maximise the potential to provide housing units as part of a well designed town centre
redevelopment scheme and therefore is not correct in stating, in para. 6.2, that the town has few
opportunities for development within the settlement and outside the Green Belt. (There could be
many opportunities to deliver them, particularly above shops).
Agree broadly with the Town Centre and Infrastructure elements of the plan, have some concerns
regarding the Development Options / Housing section.
Agree to revitalising town to make it more attractive to visitors and businesses - not convinced we
need so much new housing.
Agree with much of the vision but unconvinced of the housing need. Also concerned that the
document assumes the Wilson Bowden development will go ahead, despite the fact that planning
permission has not yet been granted. Unsure that a lot of the ideas are in any way achievable. I
realise this is a strategic not tactical document but there is little point setting out strategy that is
unrealistic. Not enough information is given for us to understand some of the ideas and how they
would impact on the town.
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q1 Vision
Page 4
Agree, but with the proviso that the shopping needs to be concentrated on small businesses which
tend to give back to the local economy rather than supermarkets and other chains that take out.
Agreed. Therefore the town will not be characterised by derelict and boarded up shops and factory
units - the council will take active steps to ensure that such sites and property are put to alternate
use within a reasonable timescale.
All a bit motherhood and apple pie.
Although I can see that the vision is where you feel Macclesfield should be in the future, I consider
that your plans are flawed.
Although some aspects of the Vision are fine, I strongly disagree with allowing a major growth in the
number of homes and the reduction in the size of the Green Belt to accommodate them. I do not
believe that Macclesfield can accommodate these extra homes without damage to the environment
in which we live (not just the natural environment but also the extra pressure on the infrastructure).
As for the new South road, this has already been considered in the past and rejected; it is insulting to
local communities to bring back proposals which have been rejected in the past just because the
answer given was not the one wanted by the proposers.
Any town would want to achieve what is set out in the vision. 2030 is too long to wait to achieve this
vision. Community facilities and delivering a vibrant town centre must be prioritised and achieved
quicker than 2030.
Areas of which I agree with is the development of new affordable housing as I believe there is a
much needed requirement for young people to get on the property ladder. I think that there are far
too many rented accommodation with Landlords asking far too much rent it is crippling the housing
market. If building these houses is intended for green belt sites then so be it as there are still vast
amounts of countryside to be enjoyed. The extension of the town centre however, I think is a bit
ambitious with the boundary being pushed out to Union street. I agree with the stakeholders that in
the current climate this isn't a great idea and think development of the town centre should be may a
priority.
As an affected resident I cannot agree with the above statement. My information has come from a
most convoluted source and I would expect something of this magnitude to be openly delivered by
the council to all residents in a manner that is clear, fair and not misleading. In addition, I understand
that only 3 Macclesfield town councillors have attended meetings relating to the proposals and this
is totally unacceptable and again disagree with the above statement.
As we have commented previously the town does not need a modern new development. We spend
a lot of time in Sidmouth Devon and what attracts people there is the fact it has NOT been
developed. However it is spotlessly clean, lovely walkways, flowers and trees, independent shops are
encouraged and cares are encouraged to have table and chairs outside (not charged). They have a
small cinema in a lovely old building (very much like we had!) and the community are encouraged to
hold events and promote the town. They have just allowed a couple of national chains into empty
outlets but the vast majority of stores are independent.
Aspirational but surely applies to every town in the country, and probably the world.
Because it involves large scale rolling back of the green belt. The built up area can accommodate
most of the houses required.
Before Macclesfield ever becomes an appealing destination, much demolition of Victorian Mills will
be needed.
Best sentence... " safe, desirable place with only a little development which must be logically
sustainable and where people want to come"
Building on Green Belt land should not be permitted.
Concerned about the impact of new building housing and roads on a town that already has too many
unsold properties and no commercial life.
Developing around the top end of Gawsworth Road will result in a heavy use of traffic on this minor
country lane. For the sake of safety it would be good to have a speed limit. This would also
Page 5
encourage traffic to go on the new road to cut the corner off when proceeding to Chelford from
Congleton Road. On the town centre plan, I note that once again Paradise Mill is marked as the
museum whereas the Silk Museum is not indicated. I find it hard to take the discussion seriously if
the map makers cannot get this right. I am concerned that so many houses are planned with no
mention of the development of derelict mill buildings around the town. For every housing
development, please insist the companies adopt a mill renovation project. These could be flats,
reducing the necessity of building on green belt.
Disregard for greenbelt
Disagree as this involves large scale rolling back of the Green Belt. The built -up area can
accommodate most of the houses required.
DISAGREE. Impractical, expensive "links to China" - no way! Naive!
Essential to give prime consideration to Macclesfield’s unique historic/silk heritage to promote
tourism and national international business links. Retain character and architecture renovated
buildings (Strongly agree) 1.
Extremely concerned regarding the extensive redevelopment of important Green Belt surrounding
Macclesfield for housing or mixed use. Priority should be further given to the redevelopment of
brownfield sites. Extremely concerned regarding the development of the town centre because of: a)
the risks of drawing custom away from the existing businesses in the beautiful 'historical market
quarter' by extensively developing to the south of the town centre ('Southern Silk Quarter') b) the
potential for reduction in views of the surrounding hills of Macclesfield (which form an integral part
of being in the town centre) c) the increased retail venues being created despite the fact that many
in the existing town centre remain empty d) the fact that Macclesfield currently retains a local,
original, historic feel, which would be directly challenged by new, modern and large developments.
brownfield sites. Extremely concerned regarding the development of the town centre because of: a)
the risks of drawing custom away from the existing businesses in the beautiful 'historical market
quarter' by extensively developing to the south of the town centre ('Southern Silk Quarter') b) the
potential for reduction in views of the surrounding hills of Macclesfield (which form an integral part
of being in the town centre) c) the increased retail venues being created despite the fact that many
in the existing town centre remain empty d) the fact that Macclesfield currently retains a local,
original, historic feel, which would be directly challenged by new, modern and large developments.
Firstly, stop calling your plan a 'Vision'. It marks you out as idiots. We in the town know this council is
full of idiots; we don't want to proclaim it to the world. I'll be brief. I see no reason to build on green
belt land. We have plenty of derelict and underused land in the town for housing and/or business.
We still have empty mills that can be redeveloped, following the excellent pattern of Belington’s
Adelphi and Clarence - with a mix of business and housing. Tytherington business park remains half
empty, no reason why that can't fulfil all our needs. So, as far as I can see the only people who will
benefit from building on green belt land are the developers, and one has to wonder why this council
seems so keen to handy lucrative deals to developers, again and again. What this town really needs
is not 'a Vision' - (yes, some capital projects would be worthwhile, particularly a mid range
performance space in the town centre, 5-800 capacity, music, theatre, art etc, but do we need an 8
screen cinema? Why? We HAVE a cinema, a good one. I can't see that this town could sustain a large
cinema, it would become another white elephant) - what we need to do, what YOU need to do, is
get the basics right. You need to reduce business rates, you need to take care of essentials - it is, for
example, ludicrous that you witter on about extending leisure facilities, and yet you don’t' look after
what we have. The Macc Leisure centre stinks - literally. Stinks throughout, and is insanely hot. The
town's parks - South and West - WHY are the toilet blocks not open during the day? How can parents
take their kids to the playground if there are no toilets? This is BASIC stuff. This is what you should
focus on. This is quality of life. Which brings me to my core point - what Macclesfield really needs is
its own council, its own control over its own destiny. That should be the vision - giving
Page 6
*Macclesfield* people control over Macclesfield; and I'd be very curious to see how you could
possibly argue against that. If Macc had its own council, and wasn't instead dominated by councillors
elected outside the town, then perhaps the people and the council would walk in step, and small,
practical, long-term plans could be made that genuinely would benefit all, and would also cost a
great deal less for us council tax payers than your grandiose, ego-driven, and fundamentally
undemocratic plans. Clear enough?
Full of objectives but little concrete plans.
Generally agree but will it happen?
Note the element of the Vision that states that Macclesfield will be a desirable place with
sustainable development, however there should be a clear recognition within the Vision to meet the
housing needs of the community. We note the need to deliver at least 3,500 new dwellings in the
town but suggest, as stated in our general comments that this figure should be properly determined
through the Core Strategy and should reflect the housing need identified in the SHMA.
Good intent.
Good to see that the Vision includes preserving the unique appeal, landscape setting and heritage
assets of the town.
Green spaces should be protected and new homes and businesses built on brown field sites, as far as
this is possible.
Hard to disagree with the Vision. My only negative comment is that it is hardly distinctive - it could
be the vision for any town anywhere in the UK. What is it that makes Macclesfield unique?
How could anyone disagree? It is pointless to describe such an ideal.
I believe the focus on heritage is a little over played.
I accept that new housing is generally best located within and adjacent to existing Towns but I have
concerns about the stated aim of providing 3500 new dwellings in Macclesfield. I question the logic
of this number when the population is only expected to increase from 363000 to 379000 a 5%
increase especially with the current poor economic climate and the likely poor economic forecast for
both the medium and long term. I believe this point needs to be explained more clearly and the
assumptions upon which it is based need to be stated.
I agree further housing is required but the high volume of traffic that we have around our town is
appalling, when the silk road was built it was supposed to take the bulk of the traffic away from the
town but instead planners built it through the town causing high traffic congestion and increased
accident spots.
I agree in principle to the Vision, but I am very concerned about the destruction of particular areas of
greenbelt land that is incorporated in the plan.
I agree in the main with many of the ideas but question some of the figures - i.e. that 24% more
housing units are needed. The view that infrastructure -transport as well as housing and
employment is being considered is good as there are terrible problems with transport in this town.
I agree providing the character and heritage of the town is kept to the fore. There are many areas of
the town currently running into decline and these should be the first priority rather than knocking
down vast areas to make what would become just another modern shopping area. The town centre,
Chestergate and Mill Street should be preserved as the key areas for shopping, people are more
likely to visit the town when there are small individual businesses rather than the giant concerns.
I agree that the town will need to adapt to certain external forces and move with the times,
however, this should not be to the detriment of current householders, green belt or local business.
More emphasis should be made on improving existing housing stock, shops and town centre
amenities, etc, rather than simply creating more at all costs. There is uniqueness about Macclesfield,
its location, its culture, its character. Please do not seek to destroy this by egocentric and misguided
planning.
I agree that there is a need for more affordable housing but not for more luxury housing. I agree that
derelict and brownfield sites must be developed first. But I disagree with the notion that green belt
Page 7
land should be used except as a last resort and we are not in that situation yet. There are great
inconsistencies in the plan e.g. you say you want to preserve areas of natural value, minimise
development in Greenfield areas and encourage local accessibility to green spaces yet you identify
such spaces for development.
I agree the town needs to be developed.
I agree very much with the overall Vision - Macclesfield in the future MUST balance the need to
attract retail and business partners, provide an attractive place for people to live and work and, AT
THE SAME TIME, retain the heritage, historical and landscape features that make the town what it is.
I agree with the need for Macclesfield to develop, but there are certain areas of the plan that I find
are highly problematic. In particular the scale of the town 'regeneration' and it's appearing lack of
concern for the maintenance of local distinctiveness, and the number of sites allocated for
development that lie on green belt land. I find this point, in particular, deeply problematic.
I agree with the overall vision but have a number of concerns raised by various parts of the vision,
the most serious of which is the plan to build on Green Belt.
I agree with the overall vision of Macclesfield strategy. In particular the factors most valued in
Macclesfield is the availability / access to areas for walking (walk the dog, canal walks and country
walks), proximity to health facilities (doctors, health centres, hospitals and other health facilities)
and that it enjoyed a strong sense of community. I strongly believe that one of the key factors is
making Macclesfield an attractive environment is the easy access to open space and the country
side.
I agree with the vision to make and keep our town appealing with its landscape setting. So how you
manage to achieve this by proposing to develop on our Greenfield sites as conflicting. We like the
peak District feel and our fields.
I am appalled at this plan. Just like the Wilmslow plan, that was so strongly opposed, it appears to
treat green belt land with a total disregard. It must be fought against and the Councillors who are
proposing the plan must be opposed at their next election so they can be replaced with people who
truly respect our green belt heritage. The details of the maps in the plan are also too vague for
people to see what is actually being suggested. I fear this is deliberately done.
I am not convinced by the need for 3500 new homes by 2030. I don't see the justification for this.
Many sites in Macclesfield town are derelict. The proximity of green areas is an attraction of the
town; this strategy document is about removing the green areas and does not take into account the
impact on the people living there. It would make it a less attractive place to live.
I am very much against the proposed housing development between
I believe Macclesfield needs more people to support the town growth, therefore more houses
I believe that the vision is contradictory to the development proposals set out in the consultation
document. I would like to see Macclesfield continue to be a unique, distinctive and appealing
destination but I feel that if the Wilson Bowden town centre redevelopment goes ahead the existing
shopping areas of Chestergate and Mill St will suffer due to loss of footfall and lack of parking. The
imposing "Any town" design of the Wilson Bowden plan will be blight on the unique character of
Macclesfield and detract considerably from the towns heritage. In addition, any development of
greenbelt - one (if not the greatest) if not the greatest of the towns assets will set the ball in motion
once more for uncontrolled urban sprawl. In summary I think that if many of the current proposals in
the consultation document go ahead then Macclesfield will become an undesirable and unappealing
destination in an urban setting with a many more empty shops and limited parking, except for the
proposed Silk Street development which will comprise of national retailers occupying buildings
lacking any architectural merit.
I believe that there has been a lot of confusion and that many people, myself included, thought that
the widely publicised town centre redevelopment was the 'strategy' being discussed. I was not
aware of this Town Strategy and I try to take an interest in what's going on in the town. CEC have
been woefully lacking in communication of this strategy. I would like to know who the
Page 8
representatives of the local community are especially if they purport to represent my views!! Output
from the workshops is referred to but doesn't seem to be available to view. The draft plan is
laughable in places and reads as if it's been written by an estate agent. And what is Fig 8.8 exactly?
What/where are the 'local centres'? And most of all, the vision to maintain the uniqueness and
heritage of Macclesfield is at odds with the proposed Wilson Bowden development (which I have
objected to)
I consider the economic growth and sustainable housing opportunities presented in the Town
Strategy to exactly what the town needs right now. In these economic times outlining a plan for the
town is critical.
I disagree to this as it will create a big difference to the Green Belt between Macc and Sutton: there
won’t be any! The building of such a lot of houses will be the end of this village and the surrounding
land.
I disagree with the draft pan in relation to area E land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road
.There is insufficient roads for increased traffic from housing putting a great risk to children going to
and from Puss Bank School and the footpaths are not wide enough for increased number of people
on these roads as would be forced to walk on roadway hence increased risk of accidents. Potential
site E
I disagree with the last part of the final sentence. "...where people want to come to live, work and
play". We should not be encouraging a mass exodus of people from the surrounding area into the
town. The final sentence should conclude with “It will be a safe and desirable place with sustainable
development, for those people who live, work and play in the town and for those who visit the town
"
I dispute the supposed need for 3500 new houses in Macclesfield; there is no evidence for this, as
shown by the number of houses that have been for sale for some considerable time.
I do not agree with taking up any green belt land, it was made green belt to preserve it and should
be respected as such. This area does not need housing; there are numerous empty properties which
should be utilised first. This area needs it's roads mending, junctions made safe, areas for youngsters
to meet and entertainment facilities
I do not agree with using all green belt sights for housing when there are brown sites around the
town. There are also a number of new-builds around the area which are remaining empty.
I don't believe the majority of the objectives are achievable.
I don’t believe there is a need for additional housing developments given the number of houses for
sale in the area - lots of these houses have been on sale for a long time. The market is saturated
already.
I feel that we are building too many big housing estates on local green spaces. Putting pressure on
local school and transport when they are struggling to cope with the demand at present.
I find it difficult to either agree or disagree with the Councils 'Vision' as I do not know on what
information the Council has based its predictions. Planning for business growth and attracting new
business must be very difficult whilst the economy is shrinking and local employers are shedding
jobs. The building of new homes will only boost the local economy and employment in the short
term and not guarantee that businesses will be attracted to the area. One of the major attractions
that Macclesfield has got, and one which sets it apart from other local towns is its proximity to
beautiful countryside. One of the major downsides of the town is areas like Sunderland Street and
Mill Lane which hardly entice visitors. Providing attractive, affordable housing along Mill Lane
merging into a mixture of commercial and retail properties on Sunderland Street would provide the
town with a much more appeal than swathes of 4/5 bedroom executive homes built on the towns
greenbelt.
I personally am not in favour of the new Vision plans as the architecture is not in keeping with the
area. I also do not like the lack of real consultation on this Strategy; I believe more needs to be done
to research the outcome of the proposed vision plans. I think that the long term impact on the area
Page 9
may be more negative with the nature of retail changing dramatically and the offerings of
Macclesfield need to be though out more than just another development to be effective.
I recognise that the UK is in great need of more housing and that our town has to be involved in the
overall UK housing strategy. I never thought that I would become a "NIMBY" but my particular
strong objection is the proposal for building in the denoted area E of the Local Plan where I live and
have done for over Thirty years This is an area of outstanding natural beauty. It includes Swan's Pool
and Other reservoirs that support a considerable range of avian species that delight the local and not
so local visitors on a regular basis. These reservoirs are part of our Town's history. They were created
by our Georgian and Victorian ancestors for powering the early industrial machinery that made our
Silk Industry world famous. We must keep our history alive for future generations. If housing were to
go ahead on the hillside to the East of Swanspool, then the natural drainage to the pool would be
interrupted such that it would not fill to normal levels and would slowly dry up. The effect on the
wild-life would be disastrous and at a time of climate change when we can expect the
unexpected...one year flood, another drought, who knows the weather patterns that will emerge
over the coming years. Swanspool is an easily accessible water source that our local Fire brigade can
use to fill up their machines when other sources have dried up. I say this with local knowledge
having witnessed it during one of our recent years of drought. In future years who knows, more
houses somewhere in Macclesfield, increase the potential incidence of domestic fires and no water
to put them out? Local politician’s heads might roll? In conclusion, again based on local knowledge,
the route joining Hurdsfield road to Buxton road, taking in the views over the canal bridge, the
hillside views over our town, the delights of our industrial heritage and Swanspool, is a not just a
route to get from one bit of the town to another, it is a link that binds one generation to the next as
we share our delights with our children and grandchildren who will one day vote "well done" to their
current local politicians. Pot Site E
I see no reason to build on the green belt. The figures you have quoted just do not add up.
Population increase 5% expected households 24% increase
I STRONGLEY disagree with building on the greenbelts of our County! What have we got to hand
down to our children/grandchildren, we do not need to fill developer’s pockets when properties lay
empty or there are wasteland that could be improved upon.
I strongly disagree with building on greenbelt land especially between Whirley Road and Chelford
Road. We recently bought a house on Whirley Road and part of the appeal of the property was the
green fields at the back. We, my husband and I think that to build on this site will mean an increase
in noise and traffic; there is already enough traffic in that area with the building of Jasmine Park.
I strongly disagree with the building of 360 houses on Site C green belt near Westminster Road in
Macclesfield. Myself, partner and son live on Abbey road and we moved here because of the natural
wildlife close by and frequently go on walks along the Bollin. I would feel highly uncomfortable with
more traffic around this area, as my son plays in the front garden with his friends. There is no need
to build new houses when there are plenty rented EMPTY houses in the Macclesfield area. The
council can negotiate with private landlords and make use of these houses PLUS put pay money
towards the public, and then everyone is HAPPY! Pot site C
I strongly disagree with the Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy particularly Options A, B, I and in
particular option J. These options encompass greenbelt land which is home to many rare and
protected species including Great Crested Newt. I would like to highlight that under Regulation 39 of
the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994 (the Habitats Regulations), as amended by
the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. It is an offence to:
Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used for
shelter or protection by a Great Crested Newt (in practice this means both its breeding sites, and its
terrestrial habitat). Potential development sites
I strongly disagree with the plan to build on green belt when the town centre has so much brown
field land (old industrial buildings) which are unsightly but with work would provide attractive and
convenient homes, particularly appealing for young and old single occupancy households which are
Page 10
the largest expanding demographic. The effectiveness of this strategy can be seen in those buildings
which have been developed. The town centre needs revitalising by having people living in it so that
there is life after the shops close; this will also improve safety and security for people using the town
centre. This can only be achieved by providing more housing there. The environmental part of the
strategy plan states that green belt land is essential as an amenity for people to walk dogs and
children to play. Building on the green belt will destroy this amenity and it will never be recovered.
Future generations will be deprived of the opportunities for enjoying our delightful Peak District
location and the charming town of Macclesfield will be turned into just another anonymous urban
sprawl. Do you seriously want THAT on your consciences?
I strongly disagree with the use of Greenbelt land between Hurdsfield and Buxton Road. This idea
completely contradicts the document I have just read (Draft Town Planning Booklet). Minimise the
development of Greenfield areas, improve and enhance the canal, make best use of brownfield and
derelict sites. The suggestion to use this area does not tally with this at all! Macclesfield wants to
maintain the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including
Greenbelt, clearly this would not be possible if building was to go ahead on this site E. It also
suggests that Greenbelt should only be altered in exceptional circumstances; there are other areas
that can be used rather than attacking this land.
I strongly disagree with this vision. There is sufficient housing in the area I am particularly against the
development in Section J on greenbelt land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road. Firstly the
population is reducing. There are fewer young people in the community and the number will
decrease On Whirley Road there is a Wimpey Development and they can't even sell the houses they
have built so why the need to build more? There is a large area of derelict land next to Macclesfield
Fire station where the TA centre used to be located - why can't brownfield sites such as this be used
to build homes on that are better located to the town centre and amenities and makes use of
unsightly brownfield sites rather than destroying greenbelt. Such a development along Whirley Road
affects the visual amenity and openness of the countryside and Green Belt which is no one’s interest
apart from the land owners and the developers. The infrastructure along Whirley Road and Whirley
Lane is already unable to cope with the current volume of Traffic which makes these narrow road
and concealed junctions already very dangerous to motorists, walkers and children. It creates more
danger to the children at the primary school due to the increase in traffic. It disturbs and destroys
the rare newt population known to be living in the wetland areas of the fields in this are as well and
the prominent Bat and Owl population that has evolved due to considerable investment by the local
community to bring such protected wildlife back to the area. Due to the global demise of the global
pharmaceutical industry and already the significant reduction in staff numbers at Astra Zeneca, it is
most likely that Astra Zeneca will further reduce the number of employees in the Macclesfield area
in the years to come which will result in these people moving away from the area to seek alternative
employment in another region Pot site J
I strongly disapprove of the south Macclesfield development area plan. I have lived on Congleton
road for 35 years and have enjoyed the views and open landscape and totally disapprove of the
proposal. Please go back 10 years to Danegate as it is known. My views are exactly the same now as
then as do many of us in this area. A football stadium for 7,000 people when the average crowd can
be no more than 2,000 and they are not even in the league any more. Please check the records and
the proposal is identical to 10 years ago. My family strongly disapprove of these awful plans (again)
Pot site I
I strongly object to building on green belt land, especially zone C which is adjacent to or forms part
of the Riverside Park/Bollin Valley area. Part of your environment strategy is to "Improve and
enhance the... Bollin Valley". Building on or adjacent to the Bollin Valley can only be detrimental,
and is incompatible with the objective to enhance it. Pot site C
I strongly object to Site E for building 250 houses on the Green Belt between Hurdsfield Road and
Buxton Road - this has always been a small oasis close to town enjoyed by all of the local community.
The walk way trough Swans Pool, Barracks Lane and Higher Fence Road is a unique environment in
Page 11
the local area, it would be a travesty to lose this rural escape for the local community to another
building estate. The strength of feeling about this area was apparent on a previous planning
application when the hearing at the Town Hall was adjourned due to the number of people
attending to object to the proposed plans Site E
I strongly object to the Site C proposal. This area provides exceptional safe habitat for a large
amount of varied wildlife which would be totally destroyed. Also there is considerable traffic in this
area and many accidents annually. Surely this danger to drivers and school children should not be
supported. There are several schools in the immediate area, both primary and secondary, and trying
to cross Prestbury Road is very risky already. Site C
I think Macclesfield should remain a historic town and encourage people to visit for the heritage
assets and also to enjoy its surrounding countryside.
I think the vision is a reasonable one; however, there are many ways of achieving a vision. The
actions taken to move towards the vision will determine whether long term success is achieved. I see
many risks, especially around the town centre and housing proposals, where short term wins might
lead to longer term issues.
I think the vision is broadly right - it should emphasise the need for it to be a distinct and
recognisable entity independent of the surrounding towns and villages
I thought the plan was a well constructed
I wish to express two points in respect of the Vision... 1. That all developments should be of High
Quality (as opposed to Large and mediocre). With great awareness of the existing Character of
Macclesfield. 2. That the area between Gawsworth Road and Chelford Road be kept strictly as it is,
i.e. farming use with no additional housing added. This area is at present a mix of Housing and
Farming and sits well with the countryside one would expect to find as the town butts up to the
Cheshire Plain. Please urge all concerned to respect this aspect of the area. Site I
I would add "surrounded by attractive countryside". I.e. Macclesfield is a unique historic market/silk
town surrounded by attractive countryside on the edge of the Peak District.
I would like to comment on the manner in which this assessment is being carried out. It is my
understanding that the sites identified in the draft Town Strategy for Macclesfield has been
informed via the East Cheshire SHLAA. There were only 3 Councillors out of an extremely long list of
other stakeholder which is mostly builders, land developers etc and out of the three councillors none
were from Macclesfield wards. The statement in 1.10 of the Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy says
that "the council has been working closely with representatives of the local community". I believe
that the process so far and the way in which it is been represented in the Draft Macclesfield Town
Strategy Consultation and Sustainability Appraisal: Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy does not met
the Cheshire East SHLAA Core Requirements of the Assessment 1.9 2 "The methods, assumptions,
judgements and findings should be discussed and agreed upon throughout the process in an open
and transparent way". The methods are not transparent; at worst they are misleading and at best
unhelpful. On a more general note the method of notifying Macclesfield residents to the
Consultation process has been obtuse. We discovered the plan via an article in East Cheshire News,
on page 12 which was primarily about Congleton. While this piece was on the front page the caption
was? Who ever built that monstrosity?? Again this is at best unhelpful to residents in notifying them
of very important changes in their area like the potential reassignment of Green belt land to enable
planning developments.
I would like to comment on the plan to build on Green Belt land on Site C, adjacent to Ashfield Drive.
Having looked at the PDF for future town planning, 6.5 states that ' Green Belt Land should only be
changed in exceptional circumstances' and 6.8 states that the' council needs to demonstrate that all
reasonable options have been considered' Neither of these it seems have been taken into
consideration. The building on Green Belt land goes against the very reason that these were
established and there are it seems plenty of vacant buildings in the town and surrounding area that
would benefit from being remodelled to make for new houses/apartments. Surely this makes more
sense than destroying areas of natural beauty and home to lots of wildlife. We would like to reDraft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q1 Vision
Page 12
iterate and are in full agreement with what has been written by one of our neighbours on this
matter..., please see the following. I have read with great concern the proposals outlined in the draft
Macclesfield Town Plan and in particular, the aspects related to increasing new housing in the area
and particularly the potential effect upon Green Belt areas. Housing Needs Assumption Firstly I
would like to challenge the unexplained statement that Macclesfield really needs a further 3500
homes by 2030. P2 Para 1.7 states the local plan will consider how much housing is needed P9 jumps
to an immediate statement of Strategy: Housing Deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new sites by
2030 P14 Para 6.2 gives some statistics for Cheshire East as a whole but refers to: 314 affordable
houses per year 2009/10 to 2013/14. We are now in 2012 and no comments beyond 2014 are made.
Waiting List of 1,749 for social housing for Macclesfield. This is surely a transient figure. Nowhere is a
figure of 3500 new homes for Macclesfield satisfactorily explained or justified. Green Belt Sites Of
the 10 areas identified for consideration only options D and H are not involving Green Belt land. On
page 12 the statement regarding Strategy: Environment the plan states the following extracts
Safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geological importance To make best value
of brownfield and derelict land in the town To minimise the development of Greenfield areas To
value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green
Belt. 8 of the proposals are in direct conflict with these objectives. If the two non-Green Belt sites
were chosen for the development this would satisfy 600 houses. In my opinion Green Belt land was
identified by our grandfathers to ensure green areas for future generations to come. We should take
a very hard look at our consciences, before anyone passes permission or allows others to build on
Green Belt land, which is there for future generations to enjoy. Brownfield Sites P 19 Para 6.17 refers
to 150 potential additional dwellings within the town that comprises of part brownfield land. It is
hard to understand how such a low figure can be stated, when looking around the town there are
many derelict buildings such as empty mill buildings with broken windows which would be ideal for
affordable housing. I would suggest that the council looks at this aspect much more closely before
taking such a drastic step as to encroach upon Green Belt. Site C Specific Concerns Whilst I have
general reservations and concerns about the whole Town Plan, I cannot understand the inclusion of
Site C in the consideration at all. Traffic The roads around Prestbury Road are already causing long
tailback traffic problems at rush hour times, particularly at the junction with Bollinbrook Road, on
the Sainsbury roundabout and at Kennedy Avenue. There have already been 11 road traffic
accidents on the roads that feed the area 5 on Bollinbrook Road alone. Increase in traffic with lead
to more incidents ¢ Environment Additional traffic will increase noise and pollution. ¢ Schools I
believe that schools are already full Wildlife Of the 10 options site C has, uniquely, a natural lake
which attracts a wide range of wildlife. Living immediately opposite the lake I have an unhindered
view of the visiting and breeding birds. Mallards, Canada geese, swallows, swifts, pheasants, redlegged partridges and tawny owls are more or less permanent visitors. I have even seen an Osprey
on one occasion. Herons are common and swans are occasional visitors. The field around the lake is
home to starlings (numbers countrywide are 70% down this year), jackdaws and rooks. Winter
visitors such as redwing and fieldfare are common. The hedgerows provide breeding grounds for
wrens, dunnocks and all types of titmice. There are frogs, toads and newts and bats in the summer.
Loss of Privacy Those properties on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and Bollinbarn Drive were
purchased by their owners partly due to the open aspect and the belief that as Green Belt, the land
could not be built on. The development would remove this aspect. Effect upon Neighbourhood and
Adjacent Properties The building of 360 houses on site C, especially if they were to be low cost
housing, would have a negative effect upon the character of the neighbourhood, which has relatively
high quality housing, especially on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and Bollinbarn Drive. This Town
Plan would also negatively influence the valuation of those properties adjacent to the development.
Loss of Prime Agricultural Land The area is used each year to graze cattle and sheep and the fencing
was enhanced in 2008/9 with a plan to farm Venison, delayed by the economical crash in 2009. Pot
site C
I would like to know, where, the water required for any new properties will come from? Where I live.
Page 13
The water comes from a borehole and is pumped full of chemicals. We have to filter it even to boil it.
Is this borehole bottomless that it will service another 240 properties? I don't think so!
I would like to see something about thriving cultural activities: e.g. '.....a good range of shopping,
leisure and cultural activities both during the day and the evening'.
I would like to see the historic elements of the town promoted
I would prefer derelict housing to be made liveable/compulsory purchased before green belt built
upon.
If the Wilson Bowden scheme ever goes ahead, the character of Macclesfield will be destroyed.
If your plans involve increasing traffic volume on the A523, you must make provision for a bypass
from the Flash Lane/London Road round about to Bonis Hall Lane and Poynton. When is
building/development a recipe for prosperity? You are destroying big chunks of greenbelt land; you
are destroying Britain as we know it.
I'm not entirely sure that the town's 'vision' of being sustainable and in an 'enhanced landscape
setting' is concordant with building thousands of homes on the very landscape that the Council
bases its vision upon.
In common with many vision statements it is difficult to disagree with but presents little of specific
substance
In my opinion Macclesfield is neither an "appealing destination" nor does it have a "vital and vibrant
town centre" although it does have obvious potential for both. These are goals and so the use of the
words "continue to be" offer a false sense of optimism and should not be used with respect to these
two specific goals.
In principal I do agree. I have concerns about the future development architecture altering the
character of this historic town
It appears that the vision is confused. You couldn't argue with any of the general points, why
wouldn't you want an economically healthy town, with a vibrant centre and great facilities for
everyone, set in an area which will attract tourists with its natural beauty and heritage! This
document is really a planning strategy - The key focus is on building; it will take more than that to
achieve the vision! I do not see any really creative thinking, just fill in the brownfield and when that
runs out build on the greenbelt. If we want a vibrant town centre people need to live in it, create
some brownfield by knocking down some of the ugly mistakes of the past - The old nightclub off Mill
Street, the disused offices at the bottom of Park Lane, maybe even Jordangate car park. Force the
issue
It does not say anything. I imagine the one for Congleton could be identical - word for word. It
should identify what IN PARTICULAR will be emphasised: Macclesfield as a centre for economic
growth; as a tourist destination; as a residential area. At present, it is all things to all people. Also, it
should avoid meaningless phrases like "... set in a visible landscape setting..." (!)
It does not sit well alongside the view of a market town. The town needs to be developed around
the area it currently covers without spreading to the south with a new department store when there
are already existing empty sites where it could be located. More parking and a cinema in the centre
are essential. The cost of parking needs to be reviewed and also business rates in order for the town
to thrive.
It is a very bland safe statement.
It is an over ambitious development that does not realistically reflect what is required for
Macclesfield
It is difficult to disagree with the vision. However it is bland, could be applied virtually any other
town and is non specific as to make it meaningless.
It is important to have a long term strategy for the development and improvement of Macclesfield.
It is my view that the housing plan is incompatible with the environmental and leisure plan in
seeking to reduce the green belt. Macclesfield’s green belt is crucial to its identity and distinguishes
it from the urban sprawl that is the Manchester conurbation.
Page 14
It is very surprising that a planned increase of 17,000 individuals requires an increase of 37,000
dwellings the type of business to be attracted are the type that can be located anywhere and so the
quality of the environment (e.g. greenbelt) must not be decreased else they will just go elsewhere.
there are no major building companies located in Macclesfield and so the argument about providing
building jobs appears spurious
It seems to be heading in the right direction, but there is not enough flesh on the bones. I would
raise some concerns, especially over housing and transport. There is no mention of what happens if
Tesco manage to get permission for their new store. They are bound to go to appeal.
It should read "wide range of QUALITY facilities", indicating that the Council aim to provide GOOD
schools, hospitals....
It will no longer be an appealing destination" if the landscape is ruined by yet more housing. It could
be a vibrant and vital town if the council get their act together to create a market place
It would be good to see in the vision statement a commitment to supporting sustainable lifestyles
including sustainable transport
It would be sacrilege to encroach on existing Green Belt land with the detrimental effect imposed on
future generations. The existing "built up" area can easily accommodate the houses
required/proposed.
It would help if it made sense - what is 'visible landscape' - less buzz words and more meaningful
phrases please. It would also help if it was grammatically correct...where the community comes
together to enjoy a wide range of facilities, events, along with its rich history and heritage assets).
How can we attract new businesses if our town vision clearly displays a lack of understanding of our
own language?
It's a reasonable vision but the steps to get the vision need to be carefully considered i.e. building on
green belt land.
It's difficult to disagree with the individual bits of the vision, but what does it mean? What is a
"visible landscape setting"? How does it differ from an invisible landscape setting? This kind of
babble doesn't instil confidence. The vision needs to be succinct, and to state the kind of town we
envisage creating over the next 20 years.
It's had to actively disagree with the 'vision' but it could be said of any number of towns. It isn't
visionary. To be distinctive Macclesfield needs a distinctive vision rather than this generic, warmglow description. The vision doesn't acknowledge the decline in this town centre (as many others)
and therefore the gargantuan effort needed to make it 'vital and vibrant' once again. Macclesfield's
vision should be as a national/international silk centre, with high quality arts spaces and
performance venues and thriving heritage buildings creating a vibrant town centre for both
residents and tourists.
Laudable aims- however it would be great to see proper appreciation for what we already have + a
"caring" for that.
Like motherhood and apple pie for Americans, it would be hard to disagree!
Location wise, Macclesfield has many attributes and I feel that radical development is not needed.
We could refining and spruce up what is already in existence in sympathy with its heritage.
Lots of brown field sites to be developed in Macclesfield area. Leave the Green belt alone.
Macclesfield already has caused problems allowing buildings on roundabouts, e.g. Tesco’s.
Sainsbury’s and now Kids Allowed. Not enough consideration is given to safety of mums and tots,
elderly people and drivers.
Macclesfield Desperately needs A large Morrison’s and Asda Stores, to encourage cheaper prices
and competition between supermarkets. A Morrison’s fuel station which sells L.P.G for users of gas
in their cars, cheaper cleaner fuel Primark would be a welcome addition to the town to replace the
popular T.J. Hughes
Macclesfield does not need a large, ugly entertainment hub ruining the area.
Macclesfield has already had its heart ripped out by successive councils it seems unlikely that it is
Page 15
likely to ever get back any of the charm and character and good shopping it once enjoyed
Macclesfield has to change. Its losing Industry and leisure trade. Aesthetically the town has lost
much of its charm, providing easy options for businesses and leisure seekers to go elsewhere
Macclesfield is a country town. Building large numbers of new houses on the surrounding fields and
countryside will ruin the nature of the town
Macclesfield is not unique. There are many towns just like Macclesfield which lie on the edges of
Manchester and have good rail links to other cities. It lacks focus.
Macclesfield is the gateway to Cheshire's Peak District and has massive potential to attract a vast
range of visitors; this has not been mentioned in the vision
Macclesfield should promote its location access to beautiful countryside and Manchester and its
historic connections with silk, much more. Tourism
More building on Green Belt.
Most people will agree with that
Natural England support the Vision statement within the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy and in
particular its over arching commitment to ensuring sustainable development in promoting the town
as an area where people would want to come to live, work and play. Such an approach follows the
principles as set out in the NPPF of creating sustainable communities, with close accessibility to jobs,
homes, services and amenities.
Need to include: Macclesfield, Located in the North West of Cheshire.
No comments to make at this stage
No development of greenbelt land which provides a precious amenity and recreational benefit for
the public and protects the environment is acceptable.
No infrastructure, particularly roads and drainage. Gridlock now at certain times of day
Nobody could disagree with the set out vision but it is the way this is tackled. I do not favour multi
storey car parks, a huge Cineplex or large stores obliterating existing small independent ones. South
Macc would be the place for a Cineplex.
Not happy about the green belt plans
Not really a vision - very mundane on the aspiration for Macc doesn’t make enough of the town’s
considerable assets.
Ok - can't reasonably object.
On reading the Macclesfield vision there appears to be no fresh ideas, you have just described
Macclesfield as it is today and not the vision in 20 years time.
Our Council, together with others, noted the complete absence of any reference to the importance
of the Green Belt and its retention and preservation. Cheshire East Council Officers undertook to
review and amend the public consultation document to include this but no such amendment was
made and had it been included some of the present proposals for reviewing areas currently
designated Green Belt would not now be being made.
Overall I broadly agree but have major concerns regarding the lack of use of brown field sites for
building; of the danger of the town centre becoming further damaged by well meant but
tasteless/ugly new buildings and by the potential for putting many more houses up without proper
infrastructure (schools/shops/health etc) and without upgrading roads.
Overall I feel the strategy has been well prepared with an appropriate level of focus on attracting
business to Macclesfield, developing infrastructure for freelance home workers, revitalizing the town
centre sensitively. My major concern in the housing strategy for the development of new homes.
Prospects for employment have to be improved. If extra houses are built, the infrastructure also has
to be improved. There is no use building extra houses that will produce extra congestion on already
congested roads on the northern side of Macclesfield. Together with new houses, local shops and
schools need to be built.
Really needs more detail to make valid comments
Redevelopment must be Brownfield where possible, before green belt. What about infrastructure Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q1 Vision
Page 16
roads, traffic congestion schools, leisure facilities, loading/overloading existing services i.e. hospitals.
Is the hospital going to be extended?
Remove shopping; by 2030 so much shopping will be online that a retail orientated town centre will
be obsolete. Change last sentence to read - a safe, desirable, sustainable place - omitting
development
Sainsbury broadly support the Councils vision for Macclesfield and wish to highlight the important
economic contributions that their existing food store on Cumberland Street makes to the local area
and the viability and vitality of the town centre. Furthermore, Sainsbury is committed to ensuring
that the Macclesfield store continues to complement the activities and facilities of the town centre.
Sensible stuff / reasonable sentiment; hard to disagree with. Could it be more Macclesfield specific?
It feels like a vision for anytown... what's unique about Macclesfield and what it will actually be like...
Shopping and leisure events in evening? There is no public transport to Macclesfield after 7 pm; this
would need to be greatly improved.
Should state 'Macclesfield will be a unique, distinctive.....' NOT 'will continue to be....' It is NOT
unique etc now
So general that it is almost impossible to disagree. It all depends on how it is implemented.
Some aspects of Macclesfield today are not appealing for it to remain unique and distinctive, in so
far as it is, requires a strong planning strategy able to withstand short term political pressures.
Some elements involve the large scale rolling back of the green belt. The built up areas can
accommodate most of the houses required (link road and moss development)
Some of the areas designated for re-development for housing encroach on precious green belt,
while some areas, which have been designated for re-development for a number of years, remain
undeveloped for housing and should be used for housing plans.
Somewhat bland; not that specific to Macclesfield and not particularly 'visionary'
Statement of the obvious who could disagree in principal
Strengthen the vision in respect of international links via Manchester Airport and Eurotunnel.
Strongly disagree because of one item only. This is the inclusion of item I on diagram 1, which is the
resurrection of the link road between A537 and A536. This was the subject of a major enquiry and
was firmly rejected. The arguments were presented in great detail and have not changed.
Strongly agree with the statement 'unique and distinctive destination set in a visible landscape
setting. Lets ensure the strategy actually achieves this
Strongly disagree to site E. site e
Strongly disagree to Site E. Why take away one of our very few green areas in Macclesfield? Such a
lovely area for walking and feeling like you are in the countryside, while still so close to town. Lovely
for children to be close to nature, I.e. see the ducks, farm animals, wildlife, exploring etc. Very few
areas left in Macclesfield like this, would be such a shame to see it disappear. E
Strongly disagree with some of the housing plans
Suggest reference should be made to Macclesfield providing a good range of housing choice.
Surely this must be the desire of any town so hard to disagree
Surprisingly, in view of its location and proximity to outstanding open countryside, the Vision for
Macclesfield contains no references to natural environment or biodiversity. This is a very short,
bland Vision statement (even by Vision statement standards).
The vision whilst fine in itself is contradicted in the rest of the plan.
The area does need some clear thought given to the future, rather than allowing it to drift or
become too influenced by purely commercial interests
The aspirations expressed are fine. It's the likely implementation I have problems with.
The beauty of Macclesfield is its independence arising from its location. I disagree that it is necessary
to increase its size with more homes and more industry. Macclesfield is blessed in being surrounded
by countryside allowing the town and its inhabitants to breathe. Once the countryside is built on it
will never ever revert back to country. The Vision bases its assumption on: "more is best" whereas
Page 17
consideration should be given to improvement, i.e.: a little tweak in the Vision to "Better is Best"
The case for building large numbers of new homes on Greenfield sites is not clearly made, nor
adequately justified. I would be delighted to see Macclesfield's economic strength recover; this has
to be addressed through generating business in the town as it stands, not through creating more
housing. The town has been gutted by the building of out of town shopping centres and the poor
parking (and high charges) in the Town Centre - this is what needs addressing.
The Consultation Document is fundamentally flawed because it fails to define what constitutes
"Macclesfield Town", what area is included or excluded and why. For example, is it the map on page
16 which includes part of Gawsworth or Henbury ? There is nothing to define the criteria by which
the boundary of "Macclesfield Town Centre" is established - why is Sainsbury excluded when it is
barely one street away from the proposed definition. Given that there are tentative planning
applications for the Tesco and adjacent sites on Hurdsfield, why is this site being excluded from the
Development options on page 16. There are also some contradictions in the Development Options
e.g. successful retail development in the SMDA could well damage prospects for Town Centre
development.
The draft Macclesfield Town Strategy concentrates on expanding the town in several directions. I see
little point in expanding the town outwards into green belt land when the town centre is dying.
More out of town shopping areas, especially so close to the centre can only add to the centres
demise by encouraging shoppers to use free parking and shop out of the centre. We should be
concentrating upon developing the many derelict sites within the town and looking at ways to revive
the centre as an interesting centre which will attract people back into it. Parking charges do little to
encourage people into the town when there is free parking at out of town shopping areas. If there
was free centre parking, then more people would use the centre, and hopefully the many empty
shops would fill up creating more business rates to subsidise the loss in parking charges. The Treacle
Market proves the point, when there is free parking on Sundays. To create further retail areas
around the outskirts of the town will do nothing to re-generate the centre. As regards new housing
then surely it would be better to look at the many available if smaller sites that exist within the
existing town boundary. Whilst many of these sites are too small to attract the big developers, we
should be looking at smaller local developers which would create more local employment. The big
demand is for low cost housing for local first time buyers not more large out of town developments
with big expensive properties. Many people cannot obtain mortgages for large properties and the
big developers do not make sufficient profits on low cost housing for them to be interested in
developing small sites. As regards a new football stadium, then I feel this is an unrealistic dream. The
existing stadium is never full and not likely to be so with the close proximity of the big Manchester
clubs. Apart from the massive cost of building a new stadium on what is a peat bog, the long term
running costs would prove unviable unless Macclesfield Town suddenly achieved a dramatic rise up
the leagues which I fear is extremely unlikely. The proposed new roads around the South of the
town would do little to take traffic out of the town, apart from again giving easier access to the new
out of town shopping areas. It is my opinion that we should start by looking at the centre of the
existing town and only when all available development sites have been used up and the centre is
revitalised that we should be looking to expand the existing town boundaries.
The green belt areas of Macclesfield should be protected and not built on or developed, at all
The green belt around Macclesfield and surrounding villages make it a very attractive area to live
and bring up your family. If these green belts are built on the town and villages would merge
together affecting the communities such as Henbury, Prestbury etc., which has happened in other
towns such as Stockport, making it a much less desirable place to live. Please don't make the same
mistakes. If sustainability is priority, keep the green belts and concentrate on the town centre and all
the uninhabitable buildings in order to keep the area attractive to residents and visitors alike.
The Green Belt should not be altered in any way. The built-up area of the town has sufficient vacant
land for development. Wilmslow has successfully objected to the number of houses suggested for
the town, and now that housing has magically been foisted onto Macclesfield. In addition, the
Page 18
alleged requirement for employment land is immaterial since Macclesfield has above-average
employment figures.
The green belt should remain as it is
The housing policy I strongly disagree with
The idea of redeveloping the town centre is pointless & will destroy the character of the town.
Building on Site C by Upton woods will ruin the character of the local
The integrity of and links within conservation areas should be maintained and taken into account
when developing plans for the Town Centre. It is also important to ensure that there is a welldefined strategy for protecting the setting of listed buildings which includes a implementation plan
detailing where original surfaces, cobbles, paving, green space etc are to be maintained or
enhanced.
The level of development is not supported by the infrastructure in Macclesfield area i.e. Doctors
Dentists Hospitals Roads are inadequate to support the level of house occupancy for existing users
never mind the additional proposed levels.
The location of Site C is totally inappropriate for the following reasons: - It will ruin the Bollin valley the Bollin valley will no longer act as a beautiful piece of countryside separating Prestbury from
Macclesfield, it will just become some parkland in between housing estates. The gap between
Macclesfield & Prestbury cannot be shortened any further before Prestbury becomes an urban
suburb of Macclesfield. Upton woods would be ruined.
The Macclesfield strategy would have serious deleterious impacts on the setting of the town, the
landscape around it, sustainability and the quality of life in neighbouring parishes including
Prestbury - whilst failing to deliver a vibrant, regenerated town centre with many new housing units
in it. The Town Strategy demonstrates recognition of the requirement by the Regional Spatial
Strategy panel that Cheshire should be releasing employment land (not adding to it) for mixed use
and for housing. It appears to have been drawn up with little concern of impacts on the eastern flank
of the North Cheshire Green Belt and on surrounding areas.
The plan you provide will not give the vision you aim for. The town is currently dying, with much
economic activity taking place elsewhere- businesses are not thriving now, and the Plan will not
make that change. Worse, the proposed expansions will contribute to a larger urban sprawl which
will do nothing to improve the dead heart of the town.
The possible developments to the east of the town would be a concern if they were to be approved
at some future date. The Green Belt for the area Buxton Road/Hurdsfield Road has already been
subject of a planning application which was not approved - this was meant to be a major housing
project to include Larkhall Road and environs. The area involved is agricultural and wildlife, including
badgers and foxes abound there. It is also close to the canal and Swan's Pool areas which is a haven
to birds and other wildlife. It is an area of some beauty although not everyone might agree and
should not be defiled by new developments, better brownfield and or existing sites be utilised
before encroaching yet again on an open area. The element of profit for land owners should not
feature in the thinking about change of use of existing Green Land. Fundamentally I am against the
change of any Green Belt facility to a housing or industrial use except under the most rigorous
conditions.
The potential building of more houses on green belt land is highly inappropriate for the town and
surrounding area. In particular the building of houses between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road is
an appalling solution to any housing problems. The area is a piece of green belt land of outstanding
beauty that provides perfect access to the countryside for the people living in Hurdsfield. It is not
appropriate for the council to consider such expansion of the town onto this land. There are a
number of areas of Macclesfield that are far more appropriate for re-developing on "brown" field
sites without destroying an important piece of countryside. Furthermore the infrastructure in place
to support additional housing is not sufficient especially when considering the road capacity around
both Buxton and Hurdsfield Road through busy periods.
The proposal to build on the green belt around Macclesfield is a serious flaw in the town strategy.
Page 19
One of the key features of Macclesfield is its easy access to rural land and extensive green spaces.
This is a fundamental element of the attractiveness of the town and any strategy which sets out to
build on the green belt will completely alter the fabric of the town at the expense of additional
housing. In particular I object strongly to the specific proposal to build on the green belt between
Hurdsfield road and Buxton road. This land is amongst the most picturesque in the whole town and
any plans to build on it should be resisted. The government guidelines on only altering the green belt
in exceptional circumstances should be followed here. To cite as a possible benefit of building on
green belt land that section 106 funding could be used to improve walking and cycling routes is
almost laughable given that the green belt land in question provides some of the best cycling and
walking routes in the town.
The proposals degrade the green belt of Macclesfield. Increasing the urban sprawl and reducing the
vibrancy of the town by not building on possible brown field sites. The green belt land between
Pexhill Road and Chelford Road has breeding Barn Owls, tawny owls and great crested newts to
name a few of the species.
The proposed link road to Congleton Road is welcome and long overdue. The revitalisation of the
town centre is also welcome as long as its heritage is retained and individual shops encouraged as
well as larger chains. Cinema, senior citizens hall, leisure for young people all vital. Also concert hall.
There are however plenty of brown field sites which should be utilised first, e.g. bottom of Fieldbank
Road, land adjacent to fire station before building on green lungs.
The proposed locations for new residential development to the South and West of Macclesfield are
disgraceful. Develop derelict land, brownfield land not GREENBELT land and not line the pockets of
(edited by admin)
The proposed plans for Macclesfield Town are to be commended. However, very many residents of
Macclesfield Town enjoy the close proximity of the Green Belt attractions. This is especially so to the
east of the town. The Green Belt area to the east of Fence Avenue has, in previous plans, been
designated a "Nature Conservation PRIORITY Area" It is imperative this remains so, as strongly
recommended by the Stakeholder Panel on page 18 of the Macclesfield Draft Town Strategy
The site will ruin wildlife habitat, but also ruin the serenity of this area. Not to mention the loss of
even more valuable greenbelt and in this time of flooding a loss of this area can never be replaced.
The theory is sound, is it practical? Is it thought through enough?
The town centre certainly needs an face lift, but I would question the proposals to build quite so
many houses in the area. How do you know that so many houses will be needed? Have you counted
up how many are empty and for sale in the district at the moment and how long some of them have
been on the market? Define "affordable". What makes you think that once built they will be sold to
first time buyers the way the economy is at the moment. Why are there no low-rise blocks of flats
proposed? Not all people want gardens and land is finite. I note that a major road linking the
Congleton and Leek roads is proposed. I for one do not want any more heavy vehicles and shopping
traffic visiting Lyme Green than there already is. The proposed move of the football field to the
South Macclesfield development area is ridiculous. They can't fill the place they have now and when
people realise that the link road will come out at the end of Moss Lane, they won't be too pleased the traffic will be horrendous. I think it should also be considered that more people use the land
called by the council as "The South Macclesfield Development area" is used by countless citizens of
the town for leisure activities - walking their dogs, taking the kids for a safe walk, not least to watch
nature, since the area, after 18 years of lying fallow has returned to the wild. It is also bottomless
peat. No further development of shops, houses, football grounds or work places is required there. It
has been tried once - remember Danegate? Expect a fight. To build on the land belonging to Sutton
Hall farm on the approaches to Macclesfield from the south off the A523 would be a mistake. Not
many towns have such beautiful approach, with distant views of Tegg's Nose and open fields. Once
spoilt with buildings - both at Gaw End Lane and Sutton Hall Farm - that view is gone forever. May I
say the reason you are surprised that very few people have registered opinions on the above matter
is the complete pantomime of registering to get this far. Make it simpler, especially since you must
Page 20
realise that not all people are computer literate. I know - I'm not - its taken ages to get this far but
this subject are too important to let pass. Perhaps your questionnaire should have been circulated in
paper form to every household, not just the few who have reached this far. There does appear to be
a heavy dependence on land to the south and west of Macclesfield and not too much off the Silk
Road, where the dual carriageway can take the extra traffic. I hope you find these comments
constructive.
The town centre is dying, businesses are not thriving. Free parking facilities would help the shops in
town compete with out of town precincts. Business rates need to be reduced - reduce red tape and
local government staffing levels.
The town has been 'dying' for a number of years and in particular the business community. This is in
dire need of regeneration.
The town has this already
The town must stay 'unique' - with individual local shops in the heart of the continuingly vibrant
town centre
The town of Macclesfield has a great potential to be far more than a simple south-Manchester
commuter town. Genuine redevelopment is key to this as long as it is done in a way which allows the
town to retain its individuality and character.
The town should be redeveloped and enhanced. If nothing is done, the town will stagnate and will
be worse place for the residents of the future. Development can lead to employment and housing is
required to keep house prices reasonable for future generations.
The traditional Town Centre is in need of a major face lift and not enough attention appears to have
been given to this area. Providing some form of Cantilever Roof over the Town hall end of
Chestergate and linking The Market Place etc into the shopping arena would considerably improve
the Vision. Opening the vision to other parts of the town is counterproductive as it will draw people
away from the Traditional centre and discourage traders from populating the traditional centre. Let’s
concentrate on the traditional centre and get that right. The constant harping on about Cycle Tracks
and facilities is pointless as this is a town built on and surrounded by Hills and as such cycling is for
the Fit minority. Also the age profile of the Town defies the fact that cycling is a popular form of
transport. The relocation of Macclesfield Football Club is a total Waste of funds as they are never
going to be a club with a following that deserves this attention. A better thought might be for the
Rugby Club and Football club to consider combining their resources and developing a stadia that is
suitable for both sports. This does not necessarily need to be that they share the actual pitch but
with the releasing of Green Belt land the development of a Joint Sport facility would make sense. It
could be a Mini Olympic Park site and involve other sports as well. This would provide the ability to
have shared support structures (Parking, Catering, Services etc) and once a site is defined the
development could be progressed as funding becomes available. Linking in with the existing Lyme
Green development might make this proposal workable as Major retailers that need far more Square
footage than the town centre can provide could be encourage into this environment. We have to
accept that the space in the Town centre is restricted and as such causes major retailers to shy away,
so without major demolition plans and substantial structure changes to the traditional Town centre
there are few opportunities to develop large stores. Whilst this will be argued as drawing people
away from the Town centre traders we have to look at making the Town centre attractive in other
ways. Small unique retailers utilising the existing updated premises! A Sporting Centre is what is
required!! Sporting facilities for the Young (and old) are very poor in the Macclesfield area and this is
very limiting! Ok Transport and Road structures seem to be a major area of concern in the town and
there does need to be a major rethink about this. The proliferation of Roundabouts is a major issue
that makes access by the Very large Lorries etc almost impossible. If pedestrianisation is a serious
thought then there will be a need to limit access to delivery vehicles and this will be a nightmare to
manage by retailers in the Town centre. There needs to be thoughts about the provision of
distribution centres where these large delivery vehicles can drop their goods to be taken into the
centre by smaller vehicles or retailers can arrange to collect the goods. The roads in and around
Page 21
Macclesfield cannot support the Vehicle profile that is currently developing. There does not seem
any realistic thinking has been applied to this area.
The unique historical background must be SAFEGUARDED
The vision as an overarching idea is good, as the centre of Macclesfield definitely needs redeveloping
and modernising. However, I do not feel that the addition of such a large number of new-build
houses is warranted, particularly when so many greenbelt and Greenfield sites are being considered
for this purpose, when there are a large number of brownfield and derelict sites available.
The vision covers all relevant aspects relating to the future of the town.
The Vision details, by 2030 Macclesfield will continue to be....... set in 'a visible landscape setting'.
What sort of landscape?, a mix of industry and employment, thousands of new houses, retail and
community facilities and a new west link road, where beautiful greenbelt farmland used to be for
hundreds of years with hedgerows, trees, ponds, a valuable habitat for wildlife and extremely
valuable farmland. Greenbelt land should be preserved for future generations and should be
protected at all costs from being eaten into for developments.
The vision does not focus sufficiently on the need to consolidate and invest in existing areas and
services before extending them. Put right what is here first before going off on a tangent to do other
things and losing sight of the goal.
The vision for the council should be to encourage people and businesses to want to be here by
tidying up the mess they have already made. There are too many disused buildings and homes that
are being left to rot. This in turn attracts crime and therefore reduces the needs to that area. Spend
the money they want to burn destroying green belt land on redeveloping brown sites and making
the streets a safer place to walk.
The vision has totally focused on new house building rather than refurbishing the hundreds of
currently empty homes. It does appear that the council are not really interested in the views of the
people and are focusing on the developers. People of Macclesfield have not been clearly made
aware of this project and one would almost believe that the council has made every effort to be
covert and keep the public out, firstly by the short time frame for responses and secondly by the lack
of written information made available to the public. The council spent hundreds on telling us about
the silver bins with full page adverts in the papers, banners on all council premises, road show,
letters through the door, but we had got the bin so we knew what to do. It does also appear that this
plan may be a done deal as people have mentioned that the local builder is carrying out wildlife
surveys already. Also it appears that the council are not maintaining footpaths through these areas,
almost to make sure the public keep away. The greenbelt between Whirley Road and Chelford Road
has large number of wildlife sites and the lake in the field is an area of outstanding habitat for
birdlife and migrating birds. The developers would need to clear this site which is of significant
importance. As these field are agricultural they offer the local residents an area of fresh air and with
a well used public foot path, the council will spoilt a very attractive piece of countryside which has
already been over developed.
The vision is sound
The vision is very nicely put, but this is simply 'lip service'; the strategy is so flawed that should it
come into effect, this vision would be so far from reality that it would have been a mere hope for a
future that ECC failed to deliver
The vision neglects the provision of the countryside and green environment. A vague reference to a
"landscape environment" is insufficient. The town lacks green spaces. Instead we have a sorry tree
set into a street here and there. The vision is aimed at more building which it calls "sustainable
development". Not only does the vision ignore the importance of creating beautiful spaces within
the town, it is directed at filling in the green spaces that exist around the town. I despair at the lack
of any vision to safeguard and create a beautiful environment. I feel that this is a vision which will
encourage the proliferation of uninspiring buildings and urban sprawl.
The vision reflects the town I hope Macclesfield will be.
Page 22
The Vision set out in the Town strategy for Macclesfield is very good. I would like to see this vision
put into action as soon as possible.
The vision statement is made up of two sentences. I feel the first one about 'continuing' to be as we
are is weak and doesn't say very much about our vision. There are two key things which I feel are
missing from the vision statement - public health, and size of town. Good health is so important, and
the vision for Macclesfield should be to promote developments which help us all to be healthy. I
think the vision should include some mention of the size of town that we want to be (relative to
other towns/cities). Bigger than current? I hope not.
The Vision, as written, is completely misguided in all aspects should the proposals outlined in the
town strategy consultation come to fruition as these will not provide the beneficial outcome for
Macclesfield envisaged for 2030..
The word "continue" should be removed. The statement relates to the future vision for Macclesfield.
Currently the town is in decline and is not achieving its full potential. In particular it does not have a
vibrant town centre especially after 5pm.
There appears to be no vision at all. The statement could be used to describe Macclesfield today.
And, by the way, the landscape setting of the town will not be altered by the efforts of the town
council.
There are more than adequate brown field sites in the Macclesfield area without having to resort to
green belt land. Both sites F & G merge Macclesfield with Sutton and Langley and have inadequate
road infrastructure. It would irrevocably spoil the landscape to the south and east of the town which
is part of the green belt. It is interesting to note that Wilmslow has rejected all its large scale
development plans.
There are too many people living in areas causing congestion everywhere. We live in a throw away
world of waste and disruption. Why not utilise the houses and buildings all over Macc. Does
reclamation work instead of bull dosing down and starting from scratch? The Town strategy seems
to contradict itself at various areas. One been close to my heart and where I live. That is the question
of the use of Green belt land. The reason moved into the house was because it backs on to Green
belt land and farm land use. There is an abundance of wild life ranging from fox I see and hear to
pheasant landing and a host of flower and fauna .I myself have 4-6 bird feeders which attract garden
and wilder array of birds like nuthatch, tree creepers bull finch etc. These will be lost, frightened off
by this barbaric construction. I’ve done voluntary work through the years for saving, taking in ill and
injured animals and returning to the wild. Most of these are brought about due to man and the car.
This area along Abbey Road is too busy now without adding to the dangers from traffic, congestion
plus Learner drivers. An accident waiting to happen. I thought Macc was meant to be a town not be
made into a mini city!
There has been no attempt to identify Brown Field sites suitable for redevelopment.
There is a lot to do to make Macclesfield a desirable place where people want to come to live, work
and play by 2030.
There is little in the Vision with which to disagree except that the plans for housing and new roads
under 6. Development Options are a threat to the Green Belt that surrounds the town and provides
the " visible landscape setting" referred to in the Vision.
There is no need to encroach on, or actually develop on, green belt areas. There are plenty of
unused old mills, offices, etc in Macclesfield and environs that could, should demand exist, be
converted to housing. I am not convinced by the stated need for further housing either. Recent local
housing developments still have many empty houses, e.g. the one at the entrance to Whirley Road
developed on the old Henbury School site. This doesn't support the claimed need for further
housing. I cannot either see any reason for the proposed new link road from the Chelford Road near
Henbury to Lyme Green. Clear evidence of demand for such a route isn't provided. How would this
new and, I imagine expensive, route benefit the local community?
There is no rationale explained why we should have so many homes (3,500) and why so many are to
be built upon the Green Belt. This is clearly driven by ego, cash or people who have interests in
Page 23
building companies as no explanation is made to disabuse the reader of this view. The Plans for each
town in Cheshire East are clearly not linked so the Congleton Northern Link Road (which will have an
impact on Macclesfield) isn't mentioned in the Macclesfield Plan as just one example.
There is not enough emphasis on regeneration. There is too much development on green belt. This is
a disgrace.
THERE NEVER SEEMS TO BE THE WISH TO USE THE EFFECT OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS i.e. THE
RESULTS ARE OFTEN IF NOT ALWAYS IGNORED. BEFORE WE SPEND MONEY ON DRAFT AFTER DRAFT,
WE NEED TO ASK WHETHER ANYTHING NEEDS "FIXING" OR WHETHER WE ARE JUST RE-VISITING
OLD PROBLEMS FROM A SPENDTHRIFT ATTITUDE.
There seems to be a lot of proposed development on green belt land. Far too little affordable
housing is provided for the local young people who wish to stay in the area, which because of our
affluent neighbours within 'the golden triangle' is now too expensive for them to attempt to
purchase a property. Areas in the town centre have been left derelict for too long. Too much
emphasis is placed on large shops which makes Macclesfield just a typical cloned town, the same as
every other. More emphasis should be placed on developing individual shops and small businesses
to bring in tourists/visitors to the area to promote our heritage. The amount of visitors attracted by
the monthly Treacle Market shows the potential out there for individuality/unique retail units. We
do require more entertainment centres. At long last the proposed cinema might just materialise. Far
too much monopoly on supermarket shopping has been given to Tesco. People vote with their feet
or the internet and still shop at other supermarkets. It would be wonderful to have real shops where
locally sourced produce is available instead of having to buy vegetables, in season, but flown in from
every corner of the world.
There should be no development between Macclesfield Canal and beyond Gaw End Lane (Site G),
and opposite Lyme Green Business Park, between London Rd, Macclesfield canal & Bullocks Ln.
Building on Green Belt is a total last resort - other options should be explored. The green Belt checks
the outward sprawl of Macclesfield, stops it merging with villages like Lyme Green and Sutton and
encroaching on the countryside. Sites F & G should be protected from development, and remain in
the Green Belt. Both sites are designated as Areas of Special County Value for landscape. The
function of this area is clearly set out in the Macclesfield Local Plan Policies NE1 & 2 (Para 3.5). Site G
also includes the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area, and abuts the Dane Moss Site of Special
Scientific Interest. Both Gaw and Bullocks Lane are country lanes and London Road already suffers
from problems related to the Canal Bridge, and turning traffic at the many access points along it.
97% of Sutton residents voted NO CHANGE to the Green Belt in a 100% survey in Sept 2011. This
level of opposition to changes in the Green Belt cannot be matched elsewhere, and represents a
very clear view that the green Belt sites F & G should not be developed. Growth and regeneration
should be encouraged in Greater Manchester and Crewe, this "vision" undermines this important
sub region. It is not appropriate to plan for individual towns in isolation from others. There needs to
be an overall strategy for Cheshire East, so that the interrelationship between the towns can be
understood, as well as the relationship with surrounding areas e.g. Greater Manchester, the
Potteries and the Peak District. The current boundary of the Green Belt is well defined by prominent
features - Macclesfield, London Road, the canal and the main railway line and SHOULD NOT BE
CHANGED. G
These aspirations are laudable but need to be delivered sincerely.
This involves large scale rolling back of the green belt in order to accommodate housing which can
be achieved within the existing built up areas of Macclesfield. The plan which has been extremely
poorly communicated without proper consultation or sufficient time for the community to read,
consider and fully understand the implications. It would appear that Cheshire East strategy is to
divide and rule. The plan involves large scale rolling back of the Green Belt in order to accommodate
housing which can be accommodated within the existing built up areas of Macclesfield.
This is a confusing statement badly written: was it composed by a committee? Or a PR agency? Why
is the word 'destination' chosen as the key noun in the major paragraph? And what on earth is a
Page 24
'visible landscape setting'? Are there 'landscape settings' elsewhere which are invisible? What I think
you mean is that Macclesfield ought to be an attractive place for people to live and visit; and it has
the distinct advantage of being located in a pleasant environment.
This is too big a question to answer with the above choices. Yes - the town centre needs to be
brought into the 21st Century. We need a cinema, we need a better choice of shopping, small
independent and larger chains to encourage people to shop in Macclesfield rather than travel to
other towns but I would never ever agree to building on green belt land. It is green belt land for a
reason and should be protected for the future generations of Macclesfield people. Any building on
this land would completely ruin our wonderful countryside which we are surrounded by, and are
lucky to have. This is very important. Once this part of our town is taken away, we would never get it
back. As a born and bred Maxonian, with our family going back to the beginning of Macclesfield, I
am really shocked that building on green belt would ever be suggested at all. Please don't ruin our
lovely home.
This is very vague and almost unarguable however, it does little to rouse interest.
This paragraph could equally be true of any market town, doesn't say anything distinctive about
Macclesfield entirely anodyne, impossible to disagree with. Motherhood and Apple Pie Rules!
To think that taking away the towns greenbelt areas would be a good strategy is outrageous. There
are brownfield sites around the town where there is an opportunity to build and that are currently
an eye sore. Why not develop these?
Too many empty ideas and nice words
Too much housing without enough thought being given to the effect the extra traffic will have. I am
especially concerned about area C and the use of Ashfield Drive as the only access to the proposed
housing estate. I am also concerned that the extra traffic will greatly increase the danger to school
children accessing the four schools nearby.-Kings, Bollinbrook, Upton Priory and Fallibroome.
Tourism should be an integral part of this vision: the town is the gateway to the Peak District.
Using more green belt land is very worrying. The roads in the area are very busy already and would
become more congested if further houses were built here.
Very badly expressed: " visible landscape setting “No mention of: All ages All backgrounds
VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BUILDING ON GREEN BELT LAND
Vision for 2030 is already very well but we live here TODAY and the vision should be to improve
today's town first before huge expansion
Vision seems unexceptional and almost to be taken as read. Like most visions it lacks a roadmap as
to how it should be given effect.
We do need more employment in the town. There were loads of jobs when I first moved here a few
years ago, none of which I managed to get. Now there is nothing in the paper.
We have a great town centre which is being wrecked by high rate charges; we have fantastic
countryside which should not be built on because we do not need to. There are plenty of buildings
and empty properties that can be renovated and used.
We need to ensure that any development of the Town Centre reflects Macclesfield’s 'uniqueness' as
a mill/market town and does not end up looking like any number of characterless towns that can be
found throughout England. It is to be hoped that the re-development of parts of the Town Centre
will be more than a series of large rectangular retail boxes designed and built to maximise the profit
of the developer/retailer and add nothing or are detrimental to the character of the town.
We should be focused on retaining the traditional elements of the town and its character
We would like to see all the green belt round Macc. stay. And brown site to be developed.
What differentiates Macclesfield from other towns is the close and easy proximity to varied open
countryside + easy access to Manchester, airport, rail network and good shopping facilities close by
(but not in Macclesfield). Macclesfield is reasonably well separated from other towns nearby maintaining this separation is vital.
What is visible landscape setting? The position of the town centre on a hill top with potential
Page 25
magnificent views to the North, east and south has never apparently been taken into account by any
new building or new development proposals
'where businesses thrive' is very generic and gives no sense of which type of businesses will be
targeted; sme's, large corporations. Which industry sectors?
Where people can park safely and walk without fear of "chuggers".
Where will all the money come from? We pay enough! New houses will not be occupied as people
cannot afford to buy.
Whether additional housing is needed or not, we CAN NOT sacrifice the beautiful green belt land
around Fence Avenue, Higher Fence and Lark Hall. This is land of amazing beauty which local people
love and hold dear. Building on this would be irreversible and take away some of what little beauty is
left inside of the town. Generations of my family have loved this area. Every time I go there I see
people taking their children, how can you destroy this?
Whilst clearly supporting the need for a Town Strategy to meet social, economic and environmental
needs, I am very strongly against the encroachment onto Green Belt areas. There are plenty of
suitable brown-field sites for housing and other development, not to mention the under-utilised
town centre. It is absolutely vital that this Council protects the relatively small amount of Green Belt
areas for the future, and not simply think about today - development should be sustainable, and
supported by proper studies, rather than amateur guesses as we have suffered from in the past.
Whilst I understand that the options are precisely that at this time, the vision seems to have been
compiled by a few people with an agenda to open up areas for development that could potentially
be left alone if alternative ideas were developed. I think developing a sprawling housing ring that
reaches out far from the town centre is not only un-sustainable in terms of encouraging greater
dependency on cars, but also gobbles up green landscape that has a greater amenity value left alone
than being developed upon. A better more robust and consolidated core town would be a more
suitable destination for housing need and it would have the added benefit of encouraging growth
commercially simultaneously.
Whilst it in vital to plan to 2030, changes are taking place at such a rapid rate, that any data
projections for this time period are unreliable. Whilst I fully support the need to maintain
Macclesfield as a market town, I have real concerns at the ideas suggested in this consultation
document. The success of The Treacle Market, is a fantastic event, bring together local produce and
celebrating the history of Macclesfield is the way forward and not to extend the town centre. The
need for new housing is completely unsubstantiated and all housing needs should be based on the
use of brown site land. Macclesfield's heritance is based on its close proximity to open country land,
the River Bollin and the Macclesfield canal - these must be embraced and not enclosed within
housing developments. Macclesfield offers a wide range of restaurants and many are struggling to
survive. Extending the centre to include more leisure and cafes is a large mistake. Investment in
what is already there is needed. This is vitally important and Macclesfield cannot become "another
town like any other (and particular Wrexham, which has failed due to its redevelopment, lost
community and made access impossible by certain citizens, such as the elderly).
Why not perk up the centre of the town as it is. Do not rip out our heritage. Towns become
destinations for their uniqueness not anonymous retail outlets. More people are shopping on line so
town centres need to be revived in other ways - Treacle Market and local shops.
Wording odd for a vision, surely best to delete words - continue to. What on earth does a visible
landscape setting mean? suggest in lieu an attractive natural.
Would have preferred not to add yet more houses.
Yes Macclesfield do need some economic and cultural boosting but I have many doubts as to how
those are going to be delivered, especially knowing that the main actors either don't live in
Macclesfield or may have some kind of personal financial interest in the planning development,
which is not a fair or neutral start.
Yes we need economic prosperity but through regeneration not property development
Page 26
You cannot really disagree can you? But a great deal needs to be done before this bright future
occurs.
Page 27
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Economic Prosperity
Do you agree or disagree with the Economic Prosperity Objectives and Strategy as set out in the
Macclesfield Town Strategy?
•
•
Strongly Agree (16%); Agree (45.4%); Neither Agree or Disagree (21.5%); Disagree (7.6%);
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
"high technology businesses and other high growth sectors". What are they exactly? Those
adjectives sound good but are meaningless and contradictory with "developing a thriving town for
tourists, visitors and shoppers alike". Macclesfield could be a thriving town thanks to the millions of
visitors going through the Peak District every year. Why don't you focus on giving Macc its identity as
a Silk Town regenerated by a diversity of specialised and diversified boutiques, which would attract
tourists and generate large incomes, and offering an attractive town to the people who LIVE and
WORK in Macclesfield! Also, it all sounds good, but to name just a few, why creating new hotel
facilities when the Travel Lodge is struggling to fill its rooms? Why promoting business links with
China when it’s on the local, regional and national (or European) scenes that the links should be
reinforced? Have you heard of climate change and of the necessity of limiting our CO2 emissions?
Last but not least, why not providing grants for the refurbishment of homes or derelict old charming
mills (which are part of the textile heritage of Macclesfield) instead of grants for buildings for
employment and leisure use. Lots of young single people or couple who can't afford a car would
benefit from living in a town centre with easy access to public transport, station and leisure/cultural
facilities. Renovating old derelict industrial buildings has been done in many other countries
(Belgium and Switzerland to name but a few) and those dwellings are now sought after. Also, look
no further: Hovis Mill is a success story, why not extend it to other mills in town?
Economic Prosperity objectives are all positive, and the strategy identifies a range of areas to meet
the aims.
Agree about business start- ups and reinvigoration of specialist textiles and conversion of existing
buildings. Do not agree about the south Macclesfield development area - this promises to be just
another straggle of car showrooms and fast food outlets. The Lyme Green park has provided nothing
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Economic Prosperity
Page 28
more than that and some car-dependent retail, with minimal employment for people in the area.
Agree strongly with the idea of revitalising the specialist textiles industry. In general we must guard
against building new buildings before re-using old ones. We have ample unused office space plus
empty and derelict buildings. These should be used before new land is developed. If there were
more businesses in the town centre, there would be more people, contributing to the vibrancy of
the town centre.
All too general as does not help to shape the specific needs of the town
Also need to provide employment opportunities for those residents who are not suited to high
technology businesses.
Another blinding glimpse of the obvious
As above
As long as the opportunities on offer are genuinely offered to local job seekers first, rather than
bringing in workers from outside the town which will simply add to the problems.
Assist manufacturing industries and associated training
AstraZeneca are winding down operations at their Hurdsfield site in Macclesfield. This will leave a
huge site in need of an occupier when they finally leave. If new businesses cannot be encouraged to
move into this site it will leave a large site of industrial decay which could remain for many years.
Surely the Strategy should be looking into this rather than developing attractive Greenfield sites and
wildlife habitats such as the South Macclesfield Development area. We will end up with a town
surrounded by industrial estates which I believe will make it a much less desirable place to live.
Badly wrong to include specific reference to one item i.e. South Macc Dev Area. Should never do this
in a general Aims and Objectives section. Can be put in Strategy but not in objective.
Better use should be made of existing land, such as empty town centre shops and business premises
in existing business parks and attracting people there, instead of new areas such as the South
Macclesfield Development Area.
Broadly agree but have reservations about the South Macclesfield Link Road. Also, is there a demand
for more hotel rooms?
But do not agree reference to South Macc. Dev. Areas this is, and should be, a separate subject, not
sneaked through
But I don't feel that links with China will do Macclesfield any good economically ( they'll take over)
environmentally their concern is money only) not ethically (definitely not)
But will say the support we received in starting a new business in Macclesfield, was rather poor.
Cannot rely on current major employers in area & need diverse range of new opportunities. Difficult
to attract significant business but think should develop through tourism and people who commute
to wider Manchester area. Do not ignore business, but not key priority over making Macclesfield an
attractive town to live in & visit.
Concur with Objective 1 particularly with the intention to provide a long term supply of suitably
located employment land and buildings.
Consideration is needed for small business and also families in the area. Places are closing down and
not being replaced.
Currently employment is too dependent upon a few major employers, there is a need to increase
the range and diversity of employment opportunities to provide employment for the younger people
in the town. More could be made of the position of the town on the edge of a major tourist area.
Delivery of new industrial/commercial premises should be on the basis of long term sustainability
and not short term gain. Priority should be given to maximising the utilisation of existing premises
before developing new.
Demand needs to precede any building of houses and businesses. Empty houses or business units
are undesirable and a poor use of valuable land. Any building should be gradual. Greenfield sites
should be protected and only used as a last resort.
Diversity of businesses is important - now and in the future. The broad range of small businesses in
Page 29
Macclesfield is a strength of the town.
Dream on!
Economic expansion beyond the current boundaries will be unstoppable and is not needed. The
town has flourished as it is and can continue to do so with clever use of existing resources. Many
people who work in Macclesfield do not choose live here, and it is debatable whether expansion will
bring real benefits to the town, just more traffic problems. It would, indeed, be foolish to consider
such expansion while there are doubts over the future of the AstraZeneca site. The South
Macclesfield Development plans should be scrapped. Areas such as this are what make the town
loved by its residents and are very necessary for the health of the residents to the south of the town.
The football club is fine where it is, and we do not need mixed industrial/retail/housing with all the
attendant problems of traffic
Economic Prosperity depends on enabling local people to develop local ideas. Help for new business
could be temporary start up reduced business rates. Attempts on managing price of parking. Lower
or free rates at special times
Economic prosperity is dependent upon high priority access to international locations.
Economic prosperity is nice in theory, but not by saying yes to powerful companies such as Tesco
who would strangle other retailers in the town centre and village areas.
Economic prosperity should embrace economic opportunities for all
Economic prosperity will be life blood of the Town in the future, and we must find a way of
continuing to attract businesses - especially if longstanding enterprises e.g. AstraZeneca decide to
continue downsizing their operations in the area (or even moving them away completely). As well as
providing incentives for companies to come to the Town, we must provide a "Unique Selling Point"
so that they view Macclesfield as "somewhere different". For me, this "USP" has to be associated
with the Heritage of the town and the "green" attraction of the area - if we make the place look like
Slough, we will get what we deserve!
Economic prosperity will not come by simply providing land for business. We have vacant business
buildings. A major reason that businesses do not want to settle in Macclesfield is the awful road
connections to the motorway network. I know personally of senior managers from head offices in
other parts of the UK who dread coming to their failing offices in Macclesfield because they dread
the slow and painful trudge from the M6. Emphasis needs to be placed on this issue to deliver
economic regeneration
Economic prosperity will only come if we can attract good businesses both large & small into the
town. This would be helped by improving the appeal of the town centre rather than expanding the
town and removing green spaces.
Especially support small local businesses
Every other council is trying to attract tourists. Macclesfield - no tourist office at weekends and
holidays, no buses, no public toilets
Every person in this town who has an idea for a new business should be able to go to an advisor or a
centre where they are heard, evaluated, directed onwards the next steps and encouraged. We
should have a 'business angel' mentality towards people who want to create their own work which
can lead to employment for themselves and others. So many young people want to have their own
businesses. Work is the critical issue and should be the focus of a town that wants to remain a good
pleasant and safe place to live in. We can’t rely on AstraZeneca!
Expressed with such wooliness disagreement is difficult. The details in the plan do not bear out the
objectives.
Fails to recognise the fact there is considerable over-supply of employment land in the town and lack
of demand for B1,B2 and B8 premises in Macclesfield relative to other towns better suited to
motorway access. Fails to realise the potential re-use of large, vacant sites and premises in
employment areas for alternative but complimentary forms of development. Employment Land
Study in process of preparation - this will provide more reliable evidence base to inform the Local
Page 30
Plan - identify those employment areas, and individual sites, which are more suited to alternative
uses.
For Macclesfield to survive or better still return to the vibrant country town it once was it needs to
prosper.
For too long Macclesfield has suffered from underinvestment and everybody hopes that
Macclesfield will be able to attract more business.
Generally looks all right but overall the prosperity of any area is dependent on jobs. In this long
recession increasing jobs significantly will be impossible. Macclesfield's largest employer,
AstraZeneca, has all ready cut its workforce and intends to continue reducing staff numbers.
Given our transport links, well educated population and proximity to desirable residential locations
we should be focussing on bringing new business to the area which will provide well paid jobs. We
have everything they need here in order for their businesses to be successful.
Have always thought that the town could do more to attract tourists, particularly given its location
on the edge of the Peak District and its easy accessibility by train, however have never seen it in
tourist literature.
Have we not got enough empty premises to use for economic growth? Look at the empty
developments at Lyme Green. Shouldn't these areas be developed before others?
HIMOR Group is pleased to support the aims and objectives particularly the creation of a vibrant
town centre.
How could anyone disagree with such laudable objectives. There is no evidence to show how the
planning proposals will produce such desirable outcomes however. To generate a range of
employment opportunities. To provide a long term supply of suitably located employment land and
buildings in order to attract new businesses, particularly high technology businesses and other high
growth sectors, and allow existing businesses to grow, including the South Macclesfield
Development Area. To develop a thriving town for tourists, visitors and shoppers alike.
I agree but would like to know more of the tactics and actions the Council will employ to achieve the
objectives
I agree in that the town needs to make the most of its available resources, but disagree with the
"deliver ...commercial premises at South Macclesfield development area". There are plenty of empty
sites in town centre, caused by the national recession but also by the dithering, uncertainty and lack
of clear vision for the town centre which has resulted in empty properties not being filled and a
steady decline in the town centre and areas around. More out-of-town superstores will just
accelerate the decline of the town centre and pull money from the local economy.
I agree that Economic prosperity is needed but new approaches are needed and not just following
the ways other towns have gone. Again we have a very different economic climate and the future is
changing dramatically due to changes in global markets and potential changes to the way we work
and how we employ people. We need to build on our strengths and specialise in doing one or two
things well and focussing on helping build businesses in our area especially independents.
I agree that Macclesfield has to move with the times, but why do you think that our prosperity lies
with the past. Yes we have our silk heritage but trying to revive our textile industry albeit a specialist
one would not provide the large employment it once did. The textile industry is now in the far east
and this thought process is an unrealistic dream and not the reality.
I agree that the objective is desirable but have absolutely no faith in the Council being able to
achieve it.
I agree with most of the objectives. However, I feel that the emphasis on the South Macclesfield
Development is counterproductive to most of these objectives since this can surely only drive
business and customers out of the town centre.
I agree with the Objectives, but do not agree with all of the Strategy. - Tourism is something that
could encouraged. - High Tech is DEFINITELY something that Macclesfield can exploit: we are
commuting distance to MediaCity, only 1:45 hours from London, and we have some amazing
Page 31
technology companies in our town already. 'The Silk Valley' might not rival its Silicon counterpart,
but it's something that we can grow and exploit. - I'm less sure about bringing back textile industry.
Anything that can be outsourced ultimately will be outsourced. As individuals, as businesses, as a
town, we should concentrate on the stuff that can't be outsourced.
I agree with the overall objectives; the people of Macclesfield need employment. However we
should not hark back to the past Halcyon days of silk manufacture and hope to revive it. The world
moves on and Macclesfield should move with it. I also support the strategy of improving high-speed
internet access to all areas of Macclesfield which would support more home working, hence less
traffic and congestion in the town.
I agree with your Objectives and Strategy, but your options for housing, employment and mixed use
are weighed too strongly towards dwellings, suggesting that this is less of a priority than it appears.
We need strong local employment to attract the people to live in the houses. Relying on commuters
is not enough. We are not a satellite town to Manchester but a vibrant place in our own right.
I am firmly of the opinion that the adoption of a FREE PARKING policy would bring HUGE LONG
TERM ADVANTAGES to the Town. (Consider why it is that places OUT OF TOWN are so
successful....Viz....FREE PARKING )
I do agree that Macclesfield needs investment and development to enhance economic prosperity. It
seems that tourism in and around the town has been over looked for many years, so a focus on it is
therefore positive and progressive. However it appears somewhat farfetched to focus on links with
China when we live in such a naturally beautiful area. Surely it makes more sense to develop a
tourist industry that focuses on our geographical position. Many people like to walk in the
countryside and it takes less than an hour to walk to the top of Tegg’s Nose from the centre of town,
for example. That to my mind is a greater feature of our town than a tenuous link with China. We are
at a time of great environmental and ecological upheaval, a time where travel will become more
expensive so therefore less accessible to people, so surely it makes more sense to focus on the local
as oppose to the global.
I do not agree that building more houses in Macclesfield on green belt will be beneficial to the town
in any way. We do not need any more houses to be built on green belt. Where is the employment to
support all the houses being proposed? I am unable to find a job locally as are many members of my
family and friends and have to travel to work. The main two employers in this town do not provide
enough jobs to support all the homes you are proposing, and I don't think that large employers will
come to Macclesfield as the Council tax and prices of property are far too expensive compared to
say Congleton.
I do not believe that focusing on attracting high technology businesses is realistic- They'll be more
attracted to areas such as Warrington and Manchester
I don't understand how the Council will aid economic prosperity directly - building more roads and
vast estates of houses is not the answer!
I feel the strategy has identified the need for developing economic growth, attracting high tech/high
end business, and supporting the self employed, freelance and home workers. I strongly believe that
economic prosperity must be the priority and first focus of implementation.
I have one reservation which is that in meeting these objectives, which are good, we do not damage
the countryside surrounding and within Macclesfield town, both from a recreational and a wildlife
perspective.
I have some concerns about seeking to attract Tourists, if this is intended to encompass the local
countryside as well as the Town Centre. Macclesfield Forest does not have the capacity to cope with
additional visitors, and traffic and parking are already causing problems at busy periods.
I hope we can afford to support this
I strongly agree that the emphasis on revitalising the manufacturing sector is required, but I consider
the heritage, tourism & consequent retail development as certainly desirable but possibly
unrealistic. Gateway access to the Peak District national park is being ignored.
Page 32
I strongly support the proposal to support existing industries based in the town and safeguard and
improve existing viable employment areas in the town. I do not support the proposal to deliver
sufficient employment land which will fulfil the economic potential of the town, and which will
encourage employment opportunities. There are units (such as Kemutec and AstraZeneca) which
have decreased their numbers. These existing units must be filled before any further development I
strongly disagree that further additional industrial and commercial premises at South Macclesfield
Development Area are required until all existing building units within Macclesfield are filled. There
are also brown sites, within Macclesfield (such as The Towers) which have been empty for at least 8
years. Safeguard and improve existing viable employment areas in the town -I agree to support
exiting and improving viable employment areas in the town, but not at the expense of building new
structures. There are already areas of high speed broadband Support social enterprise, start-up
businesses and the development of small businesses - but for existing or brown field sites The
provision of grants for the refurbishment of buildings for employment and leisure should be
encouraged but in keeping with the historic character of Macclesfield. I strongly disagree with the
development of visitor and tourism-related facilities including new hotel facilities - support for local
bed and breakfast facilities are required and not large hotel chains. I would like to see evidence that
there is insufficient local provision before any further development occurs. For leisure facilities we
have a good leisure centre, and cinema (Heritance centre, which is often contains only a small
number of people). What is needed is safe cycling provision, affordable bus fares and investment in
areas of interest such as the canal (Matlock have redeveloped their canal area, and hold an array of
activities which generate income). I support the proposal to build on the silk heritage of the town to
promote tourism (but see my comment about building large chain hotels, but to invest in local
businesses). I strongly support the revitalisation of the manufacturing base, especially for specialist
textiles but this seems an unreasonable proposal given the worldwide economy. I would strongly
support local businesses and opportunities, such as the Treacle market, to businesses to sell their
wares.
I take issue with point 3: we should develop a thriving town for tourists, visitors and RESIDENTS (not
just 'shoppers') alike. It is not only as shoppers that we benefit from/contribute to the town's
economic prosperity. Consumers of entertainment, arts, culture and Macc's heritage will contribute
to economic prosperity - be they residents or visitors. Arts, culture & heritage should be embedded
more clearly and directly into the vision for economic prosperity. This needs a coherent tourism
strategy and dedicated and passionate leadership - in Macclesfield - to deliver it.
I think the point at the bottom of the Strategy List is the most important. I think it is vital to revitalise
the manufacturing base - not necessarily for specialist textiles - we need to start making things - full
stop. Manufacturing industry must be encouraged to start up and grow in Macclesfield.
I would add the extra strategy: Improve parking and the transport infrastructure (and reduce &
simplify parking charges) to make the town a more attractive shopping destination.
I would want to know more about the 'sufficient employment land which will fulfil the economic
potential of the town, and which will encourage employment opportunities'. We have empty and
derelict buildings which should surely be utilised first (or the sites) before offering more land. Also,
new business premises, particularly those built near the town centre should be built in a sympathetic
way that fits in with the historical architecture of the town.
I’m not sure anybody would disagree with these it’s how you are going to achieve these objectives
that will be important. This does not tell me anything apart from the fact that we all aspire to make
life better but we do that anyway. I’m not clear as to why you need to improve the links from the
railway station to the town centre as it is in/near the town centre just put up some decent signs!
If Tesco want to expand it should be at Lyme Green.
I'm not interested in the South Macclesfield Development
I'm not sure of the stress on 'high technology' businesses which demands an equivalent stress on
particular areas of skills developments and curriculum emphases in schools. I would have thought a
major area of concern is the need to find employment for those in poorer areas with next to no
Page 33
qualifications, which suggests a strong emphasis on small businesses that do not necessarily require
those with strong academic or creative qualifications. Even within this section, the third point
('thriving town') needs, I think, a change to reflect the people who live here, e.g. 'to develop a
thriving town for its population and for tourists, visitors and shoppers alike'
Improvements to the infrastructure needs to be done BEFORE further additional housing or
industrial building takes place
Increasing tourism from China is not very convincing.
It is clear to everyone who lives in Macclesfield that the town is not financially sound and rumours
abound of redundancies and even closures at Astra Zeneca. This is not the only local large employer
that is experiencing difficult economic times and, therefore, I cannot understand who is expected to
purchase these houses. Of course, I am aware that more houses means more council tax, but surely
not if the residents are on benefits and this argument appears suboptimal. In addition, the initial
costs of providing services and utilities on the proposed sites may never see any return.
It is imperative to protect what we have and it is necessary to promote new business/opportunities
for everyone in Macclesfield
It is important for Macclesfield to remain an economically viable town and economic prosperity is
clearly necessary, but I think Macc is already well catered for in terms of industrial estates and largescale employers. This should be maintained, but the emphasis should be elsewhere. I would like to
read more detail about developing Macclesfield for tourists, visitors and shoppers; such as: there are
more tourism opportunities than just the silk heritage - in particular the canal and the local
environment; shoppers want a more DIVERSE shopping experience, with more opportunities for
small-scale retailers (I note there is mention of this in the Town Centre strategy). We don't have a
top notch greengrocer in Macclesfield, for example!
It is vital to Macclesfield to create new jobs, at present the main employers are Astra Zeneca and the
council - both of whom are destined to cut back
It seems that attracting investment is key to meeting this objective.
It would be good to see more emphasis on 'Supporting existing industries based in the town' (e.g.
through lowering rents on town centre units) rather than so much emphasis on attracting new
businesses.
Keep the Town as a Market Town, based on small niche business
Last bullet should mention residents! Shoppers could be omitted
Local business not national chain stores
Macc needs to attract more OUTSIDE industry. Development sites need to be designated quickly,
and in general planning permission should be given more quickly.
Macclesfield boasts above-average employment figures. Therefore we do not need more
employment, and therefore the argument that we need houses for those who come to the town to
live and work is flawed.
Macclesfield has a wealth of small businesses which produce high quality, manufactured goods.
There are lots of skilled craftsmen/women and it gives Macclesfield a feeling of being a useful town,
not just a pretty town! Encouraging the growth of industries which depend on existing Macclesfield
businesses would be a great idea.
Macclesfield I believe has a lower than average level of unemployment nationally
Macclesfield is now a commuter town - over 1million people now use Macclesfield railway station
every year. Stoke Station with a catchment area of 400,000 only attracts 13/4million per year
Money should be generated with the private landlords (public) to fill the current empty houses.
More focus on economic prospects for existing Macclesfield residents.
Most of these strategies are fairly vague & can be welcomed, later details may not be so acceptable.
No mention of trying hard not to take Green Belt, fight against sprawl of new housing.
Mostly agree with objectives but not with strategy (valid for most objectives) Ok with supporting
existing businesses and refurb but not with adding new capacity
Page 34
Must ensure that there are sufficient places of employment for residents. Increasingly people are
having to travel further to their place of work which places yet more pressure on the infrastructure.
If employment is locally available, this would reduce that pressure.
Natural England supports the aims in Objective 1. In particular, Natural England supports the Council
in providing grants for the refurbishment of buildings for employment and leisure uses. The
refurbishment of underused buildings is more sustainable than creating new build developments or
leaving building vacant or underused and also reduces the pressure for Greenfield developments.
Need a tourism strategy for Macc prioritising the individuality of the town making the most of
existing assets and developing more.
Need to be clear exactly what business, employment etc may wish to come Macclesfield - don't
simply provide land etc in the hope that somebody might come
need to give reduced rates and free car parks for shop owners and customers
Needs a push to develop derelict mills rather than Greenfield.
Needs to include links to training skills and employment guidance
No buildings on Green Belt land. Use of brown field & derelict land
Not a lot appears to improve tourism to the area - everything appears to focus on the Silk Industry.
What about easy access to the Peak District - more people staying to enjoy the area.
Not at the cost of precious green belt and farmland supporting wildlife and our well being.
Not in agreement with development of South Macc area
Not required as Macclesfield has a below average level of unemployment and lots of sites allocated
to employment use
Objective 1 is agreed though the specific inclusion of the South Macclesfield Development Area at
this level does seem unduly prescriptive as though it is not to be questioned further or subject to
evaluation as part of the strategy. The economic prosperity strategy again specifically promotes
Macclesfield South and the intention to provide sufficient employment land appears at odds with
recent decisions taken by the Strategic Planning board to allow residential development on part of
the East Tytherington Business Park together with the prospect of a further proposal for residential
development on the undeveloped western end of the business park. Should both projects proceed
then the option of employment lad being available on the north side of the town would be
foreclosed and public participation on this aspect of the town strategy pre-empted. Safeguarding
existing employment areas around the town could be put at risk by extending the town centre area
or encouraging conversions to residential use as these higher value uses (as recognised by the
market) could crowd out employment growth and undermine the objective of industrial promotion
and revitalisation of the manufacturing base. Clearer guidance would accordingly be required. Under
this strategy words such as support and revitalise are used in relation to employment activities yet
the meaning or implication of these words are by no means explicit. Are they aspirations or is it
intended to give effect to them by the use of planning powers, direct or indirect investment ?
Objective: I don't see why it matters whether new businesses are high technology or not. What
matters is that they offer security, growth, prosperity and sustainability and benefit the local
population. I suggest that the reference to high technology businesses be deleted. Strategy 1: I think
high speed broadband should be the single highest priority to support both new businesses and
home workers.
Objectives are fine but we should be encouraging the development of small local businesses not
building large carbon-copy department stores.
Of course we want to see Macclesfield prosper but not at the risk of endangering life.
ok
Plenty of existing land allocated for employment use is presently empty/unutilised
Provision for a short-term rate relief is necessary to reduce the burden on business and a start up
rate relief should be considered for new business
Reference should be made to encouraging the re-use of existing vacant buildings or sites e.g.
Page 35
Cheshire Building Society Offices/ T J Hughes Store/ Old Mill Buildings. Priority should be placed on
re-using or re-developing existing vacant employment sites before delivering additional land.
Required upgrading MUFC
Retain character and silk heritage links nationally and internationally tourism. Educational links
Revitalise the manufacturing base - yes! Don't have a real problem with building on silk heritage and
focus upon textile industries, but these should not be a priority - if alternate business and industry is
forthcoming, it should be welcomed.
Sainsbury broadly supports Objective 1 which seeks to develop a prosperous economy which
generates a range of employment opportunities. In addition, the Council set out that they will
provide a long term supply of suitable employment land and buildings to attract new businesses.
Sainsbury’s suggest that in accordance with the NPPF, future policies should allow for a positive
approach to the determination of sustainable development proposals, particularly those which
provide employment opportunities and deliver economic growth, making clear the important role
that retail developments make in contributing towards achieving these aims. However, in
accordance with the NPPF, Sainsbury recommend that future policies should be written so as to
avoid the long term protection of employment sites if there is no evidence to support this. Policies
should be suitably flexible to reflect changes in circumstances and the evidence base. Suggest that
any policies relating to the re-use of existing employment land should explicitly acknowledge that
retail, and other non B Class employment generating uses, are less sensitive than residential in terms
of amenity and can, therefore, act as a useful buffer between traditional B-Class employment uses
and residential areas.
See comments to previous question. Does the Council really believe that Chinese Businesses will be
attracted to the town because of its links with the Silk Industry?
South Macclesfield development area should not be at the expense of the town centre.
Specialist textile skills should be promoted before all knowledge in the locality goes
Strong on specifics
Strong support but do not really see this in the actions of CEC: Rates for start up businesses? Could
they be lower like in Economic development areas, changes to car park charges to bring business
into town, make parking free on a Saturday for an hour? Adopt a longer term approach to revenue,
invest now and take a slight hit on pure rate revenue with the intention of reaping the benefit of a
vibrant economy in the future
Suggest a clearer distinction between tourists and visitors, perhaps" tourists and business visitors"
would be better indicating that Council recognises that there are differences between the needs of
the two sectors. Maintaining current major employers is important as the pharmaceuticals industry
operates at global scale and employment at all levels from production to research is subject to rapid
relocation. Silk Road brand of little or no value in building international business links, very marginal
in international tourism, can we realistically stand alongside Samarkand and Venice? Improve
identification with Peak District to enhance tourism, station within walking distance of Nat Park etc
Home working potentially important, Weavers Cottages are a town feature, reconceptualise the
combined work/living combination for the online age, shared business services for terraces of 21st
century weavers cottages.
Support is given for the acknowledgement that South Macclesfield Development Area will support
growth of businesses. In the section 'Economic Prosperity' which references a desire to 'safeguard
and improve existing viable employment areas in the town', 'viable' should be meant in the context
not only of economic considerations, but also demand, need and marketing etc. In accordance with
the NPPF where sites are no longer needed for employment they should be released to alternative
uses.
Support is given to these objectives and in particular the development of the South Macclesfield
Development Area which is expected to deliver additional industrial and commercial premises.
Support new businesses and manufacturing base most important!
Page 36
Support objective to develop a diverse and prosperous economy which attracts inward investment,
and generates a range of employment opportunities. The significant economic contribution and
potential of the town is recognized, not only in terms of retaining existing industries, but attracting
new small, medium and large sized businesses. It will be important that policies do not contain or
impose unnecessary barriers to economic development. In order to achieve these economic
aspirations it is imperative that the housing growth strategy can support this ambition.
Sustainable industries, e.g. renewable energy should be a priority
The aim is laudable, BUT the south of the town should not be developed on an area which is so
environmentally sensitive. The South Area Plan should be scrapped, and development shifted to a
less valuable ecological area.
The attraction for tourists are the history and the quality walking around - these must not be
jeopardised
The council need to channel its funds into existing facilities not create new ones
The Councils activity with regard to the Lyme Green Depot for a recycling plant when there is
existing provision is at odds with the strategy.
The description "long term supply" implies there will be an infinite provision of new development
land. I'd agree with the objective if the words "long term" were removed and if the objective
included a stated intention to utilise current brown field areas and dilapidated buildings as well as
current green field areas. I'd like to see a stated aim to avoid high rise development.
The economic prospects strongly depend on the diversity and spread of businesses. Looking at the
proposed business developments zones, there appears little or no option for the addition of one
large business provider (Zeneca 2) and so medium and small businesses have to be enticed. Whether
that’s service related or manufacturing will depend on development locations. Cost of doing
business in Macclesfield has to be a key consideration as other local places have better
infrastructure and road access.
The economic prosperity is already diverse. Building new homes which no can afford or there are
fewer people to move into a result of the demographics such that the number of people who are in
employment who can afford a home or can get a mortgage will reduce considerably over the next 10
years and many will be caught in a negative equity trap so they will not be looking to buy or move to
a new home.
The excellent aim of revitalising the specialist textile manufacturing base should be coordinated with
the inclusion of courses at Macclesfield college in textile design & technology to enable Macclesfield
to become a leader in textiles.
The goal should be to attract small scale entrepreneurs especially those forming part of the IT and
new technology industries. Macclesfield's USP should be based on its scale and position within the
Cheshire/Derbyshire countryside. It should create a "virtuous circle" of creative industries taking
place within a forward looking "green" town. "Green" here meaning both the significant amount of
green spaces within and on the periphery of Macclesfield and also the deliberate use of green
infrastructural technologies in public and private building.
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. To develop a genuinely
sustainable, diverse and prosperous economy that operates on a Smart Growth basis, attracts
investment and generates a range of green employment opportunities. To provide a long term
supply of suitably located employment land and low carbon, energy efficient buildings in order to
allow existing businesses to grow and attract new businesses, particularly high technology
businesses and other high growth sectors such as life sciences. To release suitable excess
employment land for mixed uses and for housing Strategy: Economic Prosperity Support existing
industries based in the town and safeguard and improve existing viable employment areas in the
town. Deliver sufficient employment land that will fulfil the economic potential of the town, and that
will encourage high quality, low carbon employment opportunities. Deliver additional low or zero
carbon industrial and commercial premises at South Macclesfield Development Area including
renewable energy production and smart heat distribution networks. Safeguard and improve existing
Page 37
viable employment areas in the town. Support flexible working and investment in new
communication technologies, particularly access to superfast broadband for everyone, to allow
home working and to support businesses reliant on e-technology within the town by the provision of
appropriately designed and located housing in the town centre. Support social enterprise, start-up
businesses and the development of small businesses. Provide grants for the energy-efficient
refurbishment of buildings for employment uses. Support the development of visitor and tourism
related facilities including new hotel facilities. Build on the silk heritage of the town to promote
tourism and business links with countries linked by the Silk Road, particularly China Revitalise the
manufacturing base, especially for specialist textiles.
The objectives and strategy for economic prosperity in Macclesfield are ok, however I feel that these
very broad aims along with the others e.g. Town Centre have been used to put a positive
interpretation on the entire strategy while playing down the negative impact of the proposed
housing developments.
The objectives cannot be broadly argued with as we all wish to see our town prosper. However the
strategy planned is not well defined. It is woolly at best and vague at worst.
The overall objectives are fine but how they are achieved does not reflect the current economic
climate. Look at what we have and how that can be improved first of all.
The present financial crisis is expected to last at least another seven years which will torpedo all
future plans, so the whole strategy is immediately undermined, despite section 106 and
infrastructure levy monies, which will only scratch the surface of what is required.
The redevelopment must be financially viable and sustainable to avoid future empty property. The
south Macclesfield redevelopment area, done correctly, would help regenerate the Moss Estate, the
area of most deprivation in the town.
The refurbishment of old buildings, in sympathy with the Cheshire brick heritage and style, would
give Macclesfield a distinctive edge. There are many faceless office buildings around the country - to
encourage people into Macclesfield, we should offer something a bit different. With excellent rail
links and location, having fast broadband to support small businesses and start ups reach out to
Manchester and London is important. Tourism will only come if the town is attractive - Macclesfield
is positioned to be the gateway to the Peak District and the Silk Road history is a USP but it needs to
be smartened up, reduce the number of empty shops and buildings - this does not give the air of a
prosperous market town. Use brownfield sites to support light industry and manufacturing. There
are a number of sites - including burnt down mills - which are crying out for redevelopment.
The road from Lyme green to Chelford road will only benefit the developer of the Lyme Green
business park and allow them to create further blots on the landscape. The town centre would be
more economically viable if the council spent their efforts on improving the current before
destroying the countryside. The council have approved too many large scale housing developments
for too few developers and should look at smaller scheme with smaller companies.
The schools are already full, the employment situation is frightening. In the short term, as in the
building of properties there may be employment, but the long term more houses more families even
less employment.
The shopping centre is not an exciting area in which to shop. It has lost its appeal as individual shops
have closed due to increased rates.
The strategy focuses on planning to improve economic prosperity - just make sure it is not property
speculators who prosper. We should only build when there is a proven need for premises for a
specific business which cannot be filled elsewhere - not just build and hope someone will move in.
The strategy implies: "The bigger the better", whereas Macclesfield's charm is in its independence
with its layout and in its proximity to the Pennines to the East and the Cheshire Farm land and the
stunning views out to the west. The Objective and Strategy should be to capitalise on these features,
more on the lines that "Beautiful is Best"
The strategy is ok but I think Cheshire East needs to be realistic and about what Macclesfield can
Page 38
achieve, and more targeted in what it's trying to do. The strategy is too high level and trying to be a
'jack of all trades' will not lead to economic prosperity. Look at the current strengths and build on
them, e.g. links to AZ for school leavers as well as Uni graduates. Target specific economic
development areas, and specific industries, services.
The strategy needs more definition. Of course, we should support existing businesses...but what
levers do we realistically have to pull? Businesses that have left the town or downsized have done so
because of wider economic and financial pressures. The most important factor that Cheshire East
can influence is the question of car parking and traffic. We also need to pay attention to the fact that
we are heavily reliant on AstraZeneca and the Health Service for employment - it is essential that the
employment base diversifies, and effort is needed by the Council to actively address this. This does
not come over strongly enough in the Strategy as it is currently written.
The strategy uses the right words, but the actions that are being taken by the Council are proof that
the words are not being followed. The fact that Macclesfield has enough Employment land at
present and with Astra Zeneca's site diminishing, there is plenty of opportunity with what is already
designated. The Council is also not 'supporting existing industries' in not championing the silk trade,
which is Macclesfield's gift to the world and the primary thing that sets it apart from all other places.
Focussing Employment land roughly around its existing positions close to the Bollin makes sense, but
expanding this is not necessary. Start-up businesses for example do not need brand new large-scale
developments to get off the ground, they tend to pop up in existing vacant small-scale buildings that
are close to links with the town.
The town and surrounding villages have to be pleasant places to live, not overdeveloped.
The town badly needs infrastructure in all areas.
The Town Centre and surrounding areas should be used for re-development, such as old mills,
boarded up public houses, and disused land. The South Macclesfield Development should not go
ahead, there are plenty of other areas which can be developed, which at present look run down and
shabby.
The town must develop its own economic identity and not become just a commuter town
The way to economic prosperity is to maintain wealth within the area. This is done by supporting
local businesses and avoiding the multi-national giants who siphon money from the local economy.
Further 'employment land' is not needed; we have plenty of Brown-field sites and a large proportion
of existing business locations that are vastly under-utilised; Tytherington business park being a prime
example. The council could support local retail within the town by easing the high cost of parking,
thereby giving them a fighting chance against the likes of the Trafford Centre.
The word "support appears 4 times in the strategy statements. Is this meaning that the council will
support FINANCIALLY or merely "not object to”? There is only one promise of money and that is for
building refurbishment. What is the budget for this??
There are a large number of vacant or underused business premises within the town. Priority should
be given to reusing these
There are some conflicts in the objectives and strategy with other policy objectives e.g. providing
employment land yet sites are being permitted for housing uses.
There is already a very good supply of employment buildings, and a large number of them empty
(e.g. at Lyme Green, Tytherington, Venture House)
There is already plenty of affordable housing in Macclesfield without developing further into the
green-belt
There is concern that additional promotion of the Macclesfield Forest area for recreational purposes
should be low key. It is considered that this area has reached its capacity, in relation to car parking
and access via country lanes, particularly at weekends.
There is insufficient hotel space in Macclesfield to support an increase in business (particularly if
Travel Lodge closes)
There is plenty of land allocated for employment use & Macc has below average level of
Page 39
unemployment.
There is plenty of land allocated for employment use and Macclesfield has a below national average
level of unemployment. There is a wealth of land allocated
There is plenty of land allocated for employment use. Macclesfield has below the national
unemployment.
There is plenty of land allocated for employment use. Macc has been below average level of
employment
There is the advantage of a fast train, airport etc. Be careful not to destroy the Green Belt.
There needs to be a mention of the development of the night time economy such as quality
restaurants and bars to give visitors a reason to stay in the newly created hotels. Silk heritage will be
a big draw to tourists; especially from Asia
This is a critical time to invest to make Macclesfield a prosperous and vibrant town. New businesses
and upmarket retail units could make Macclesfield a great town once again. A new image is
vital....Macclesfield over the last years has degenerated into a bland commuter town and its heritage
is becoming overlooked
This is going in the right direction but is far too un-ambitious in scope. It needs to set out the kind of
energy and resource constrained world we're likely to be living in by the end of the plan period, and
respond accordingly. We need to target energy efficient enterprise, with high skill levels. There also
should be some consideration of the way we attract high quality inward investment, especially in a
globalised economy.
This should be two separate questions. How can one not agree with the Objective of employment
and prosperity? The strategy is rather different - CEC do not support local businesses as high rates
and high car parking charges discourage visitors/shoppers. More hotels? Perhaps another '(Edited by
Admin)' like the Travelodge or something a bit more upmarket? And more business links with a
country that has an abysmal human rights record and anti-green policies on pollution? Not
something I could support and I don't think CEC should. Plus I don't trust a council that can't even
empty its own grids or resurface the car parks properly to action their strategy.
To develop a thriving town for tourists, visitors and shoppers alike: As a long term resident and
shopper of Macclesfield, I am not impressed to be bottom of the list behind tourists and visitors. If
the town is thriving for the resident shoppers, surely this will be reflected in increased visitor
numbers? Revitalise the manufacturing base especially for specialist textiles: We have a huge
number of small enterprises in Macclesfield, as well as global pharmaceutical manufacturing. In the
past the textile industry led to amazing engineering expertise which also fuelled the aerospace
industry. I think you are being narrow minded to focus on textiles.
To make use of existing appropriate premises, adapting and changing for new businesses.
Too many business premises are empty or have become charity shops.
Too vague
Transport links are the key to prosperity, not extra housing to increase council tax revenue
Use the sites already in Macclesfield Town Centre
We accept the proposed development of the South Macclesfield Development Area but have
reservations regarding the over-supply of additional retail parks etc. which may be detrimental to
the prosperity of the Town Centre.
We do not need to develop any more employment areas - too many buildings are standing empty
which should be used first.
We have lost a lot of town centre trade but l feel this in part is due to pedestrianisation and reduced
area for disabled parking facilities, out of town shopping developments have taken the trade
We must build on what we have already and not waste money building new sites which will remain
empty.
We need to find ways of being less reliant on oil and gas.
We want our town to prosper, but not at the cost of our individuality. That has to come first.
Page 40
What land would be used for these businesses? What about the many empty, derelict buildings in
town being replaced i.e. Tower
Which centres are linked by the silk road? incomprehensible!
Whilst I agree that more employment opportunities would be of benefit in the town, the building of
new houses can surely only increase employment on a temporary basis and is not a sustainable
method of increasing economic prosperity.
Who pays for grants? How can a local authority revitalise a manufacturing base without considerable
financial investment, business skills etc? All the emphasis on silk could be viewed as a nostalgia trip
by someone. Can Cheshire East Council afford to create a universal demand for such products to
make this worthwhile? The trend is for cheaper products with lower quality, which is why
Macclesfield is full of cheap shops and charity shops.
Why "particularly" high technology business. "niche" business should be encouraged
Why say no to Tesco - would develop rundown area + give more jobs. Why no supermarket at
London Rd site.
Will the supporting of new enterprise include provision for conversion of empty properties for
workshops and studio spaces at affordable rents to attract more artists and craft persons to the
area?
Without, could become a dormitory town
Would like to see all existing buildings and derelict sites used to their full capacity before any new
development takes place.
Page 41
Q2 Objectives and Strategy:Town Centre
Do you agree or disagree with the Town Centre Objectives and Strategy as set out in the
draft Macclesfield Town Strategy?
• 77% of respondents answered this question
• Strongly Agree (22%); Agree (44%); Neither Agree or Disagree (18%); Disagree (8.3%);
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
"Better links with road way and bus interchange" How will this be done? Whole is badly written
rubbish
3 more uses of the word "support" and 2 "promote" without any financial promises. Sounds like
meaningless nice words. Actions speak louder.
A lively town centre supports community cohesion
Another consultation and still no movement on the town centre strategy. This has been an appalling
waste of council tax payers money for which the council should be wholly ashamed.
A redeveloped town centre is key to making Macclesfield a destination to visit rather than
somewhere people live whilst shopping and working elsewhere. Previous plans of blanket
redevelopment were too 'clone town'. The area needs the starbucks and waterstones, but provision
for smaller independent retailers gives a town a unique feel.
A regular weekly market in the Market Place is needed. The success of the monthly Treacle Market is
clear but people need somewhere where they can buy everyday food like local vegetables and
clothes. A fine example is Leek and Sandbach markets which draw people from outside into the
town. The provision of community facilities is important and so is the ability of people living on the
outskirts of the town to access them. Regular cheap bus services to and from town will allow many
more people to come and spend money and enjoy the enhanced facilities. More subsidised travel
from outlying areas. The right kind of retail will bring people into the town, I'm unsure about a great
big Debenhams and questionable architecture achieve will achieve this. The Senior Citizens Hall must
be retained or replaced with something similar. Close proximity to the bus and rail station make this
an appropriate location for older people.
A vibrant town with a defined centre and not lots of out of town shopping sites would be preferable.
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Town Centre
Page 42
I do not wish to see Macclesfield becoming a town with an increased population with only limited
facilities.
The Town Centre objectives include enhancing the provision of residential and increasing
opportunities to live in the town centre. Later on in the document (Section 7) the only reference
made is that housing provision is encouraged however the town centre is split into distinct areas,
Central Retail Quarter, Historic Market Quarter, Central Retail Quarter, Southern Silk Quarter and
none seem to identify any opportunities for any residential development. Also the Wilson Bowden
scheme currently in for planning for the Town Centre redevelopment which is the major
redevelopment includes just 10 residential units for private sale. This seems to be a missed
opportunity for some increased opportunities to live in the town centre including affordable housing
(which is needed in particular rented affordable housing), as the number of properties proposed
does not trigger a requirement for affordable housing.
To create a vibrant town centre by enhancing the provision of energy-efficient residential, smallscale retail, arts, leisure, tourism and cultural facilities and improving the public realm and the towns
green infrastructure whilst strengthening its historic heart and making the most of its historic
heritage. To promote and strengthen the markets. To create a town centre that is accessible for all,
improving connectivity particularly non vehicular access - and linkages to and within the town
centre. To improve the appearance of the town centre in terms of its streets, street furniture,
signage and public spaces. To require high quality design of external spaces linked to its historic
buildings and heritage. To ensure the Town Centre has a sustainable and self-supporting power
system. Promote Macclesfield town centre as a focus for shopping, business, leisure, tourism and
community facilities by ensuring it has a unique offer, highly distinguishable from other centres
Support the redevelopment of appropriate parts of the town centre with the emphasis on leisure,
culture, community facilities and local independent businesses . Preserve, enhance and showcase
heritage assets Enhance the appearance of the town centre, maintaining and improving natural
assets, providing enhanced green and open spaces and taking opportunities to furnish quality
landscaping and townscapes that together offer the multiple benefits of efficiently functioning green
infrastructure. Take opportunities to improve the quality of developments by requiring high quality
design linked to climate change adaptation, genuinely sustainable development and the town’s
historic heritage. Improve the retail offer of the town centre with particular emphasis on attracting
and retaining local independent shops. Support and enhance the existing market provision and
alfresco activity. Enhance the leisure offer, improve restaurants and cultural facilities and make the
night time economy more attractive to a wider audience. Support the provision of community
facilities including a community and performing resource and a theatre/entertainment venue.
Enhance the towns green infrastructure, gateways, public conveniences and signage throughout the
town. Promote appropriate alternative uses of vacant town centre units and derelict buildings,
including for housing .Increase opportunities to live in the town centre through design codes and
prioritised funding through Community Infrastructure Levy and other means of developer
contribution. Improve non-vehicular access and linkages, including disabled access, around the town
centre providing better links with public transport hub. Recognise the value of museums and
libraries to the town centre. Establish a community energy company to deliver a town centre heat
and power network (see Annex 3)
Absolutely agree, must work to develop poorly maintained/designed areas that do not encourage
shoppers/tourists to linger. Poor public convenience provision must be addressed and a sustainable
way of securing these facilities, whilst allowing them to be available for genuine users found - the
solution is not to permanently lock them up (as has been done in Prestbury).
Adequate, low price car parking is key to the town centre. I don't think that we want any more
housing in the town centre- I would prefer to see the centre being reserved for business.
Again should be two questions. One could use your vision as an argument for the Wilson Bowden
development to be totally rejected! Talk about left hand and right hand not knowing what the
other's doing. The strategy appears to have been written by people with a vested interest in the
Page 43
shops and heritage sites with little input from those who live in the town centre. Encouraging
residents to take their bins off the streets, banning dogs from the town centre, sweeping the streets
regularly and using a bit of weed killer would immediately improve the look of the town centre at
very little cost.
Again, how could anyone disagree with these objectives either. The proposed plans to encroach on
green belt and create further urban sprawl do not in any way support the objectives. Support for
redevelopment of old mills in and near to the town centre would be a far better way to create the
inner town vibrancy and improve the town's appearance.
Again, let us be bold enough to be different! We have the opportunity to make Macclesfield
something other than the "clone towns" you can see up and down the country. The Objective of
creating a vibrant Town Centre with a mix of arts, retail, leisure, culture etc is exactly what we want the success of the Treacle Market, Barnaby etc. shows there is an appetite for difference - if CEC
embrace this, and drive it, the efforts of the entrepreneurs who have moved heaven and earth to
make these events happen will be rewarded many fold.
Agree - this should be a priority, the One thing not mentioned in this section is car parking. Most
people will be visiting the town by car and the charging structure is putting people off. 2-3hrs free
parking with reasonable charges for longer would take away the problem while not filling the car
parks with commuter vehicles. I see the provision of parking as part of the revitalisation of the town
centre and not a separate issue.
Agree objectives and strategy care needed on implementation
Agree that high quality design is necessary
Agree with much of the objective , but strongly disagree with the extent and location of
development to the south of the town centre
Agree with the objective and strategy, but strongly disagree with the extent and location of
development to the south of the town centre
Agree with: re-use of brownfield sites, more green and open spaces. Disagree with: Larger stores - I
do not wish there to be a Debenhams. Debenhams is a poor relation to John Lewis at Cheadle, which
is close enough for people to travel to. If we have a department store, why not have something like
Barkers in Northallerton? No need for large scale shopping malls, let's use the existing units and
keep the heart of the shopping centre around St Michaels church.
Alternative use for vacant retail premises is to be a priority, maybe with a limit on new out of centre
shopping developments?
Although I don't think the current plan on offer would fall under the category of "high quality
design"!! It is an abomination! One of the attractions of Macclesfield is its views up to the hills which will be eroded from all angles by ugly concrete facades, it would seem, if current plans go
ahead! Do up what we have in accordance with Macclesfield’s history - using relevant materials,
sympathetic facades, etc, before adding to it. Do we need an 8 screen cinema? More restaurants? A
department store? Get the current shops full with a mix of new and old and make it a more
attractive place to visit first, before adding more concrete devoid of any soul.
Any move to increase the number of family dining experiences risks turning the unique town centre
character into an identikit space akin to Parrs Wood and similar soulless entertainment ghettos.
Any proposals to provide additional retail facilities must be based on realistic surveys of what can be
sustained for the next 30 or so years, Please note that I am making this comment as a trustee of
Disability Information Bureau. An improvement in facilities for the elderly and disabled must be
included. State of the art disabled toileting facilities are needed and will become ever more
important as the average age of the population rises. An increases emphasis on seating, some
sheltered, is also needed in a modernised Town centre.
Any redevelopment should be modern and sympathetic and not the Wilson Bowden scheme
Any town centre plan must include a purpose-built cinema
Appalling. We need a home town, not a clone town. This development is condescending,
Page 44
disrespectful and unimaginative.
Appearance definitely needs improvement. Too many derelict looking buildings.
As a recent past chairman of the Silk Heritage Trust I do not believe that the statement linking
museums and libraries is helpful as it suggests an equivalence in importance to the town centre. The
Silk Museum must become the National Silk Centre because of its relevance, not just to the town
centre, but to the UK and the wider international community. It is a most important undervalued
asset.
I would wish to see Buildings of Quality rather than Buildings of Large Size. Large sized buildings
would dominate and begin to destroy the Small Town feel that still exists in Macclesfield. Please
Note the comment re FREE Parking.
As long as the town centre is thoughtfully planned, and not turned into another sprawling urban
faceless town with no character whatsoever. We still want Macclesfield to look like Macclesfield and
retain its character. Sunderland Street in particular is desperately in need of help. Mill Street is quite
depressing with not a lot of choice. We need to get back to the days when we had a proper decent
market in the market place. I am old enough to remember the top market and the bottom market.
Even the cattle market - although I think those days have gone forever. We need to drag
Macclesfield into the 21st Century, whilst retaining its unique charm and character.
Bringing more residential near to the town centre will help in many ways: Filling in empty spaces
with useful houses/flats. Have people in the town centre to use the facilities in the evening and day
Avoid the need to make Macclesfield spread out more and less a town What is being done for the
older generation around town centre access?
Bringing people in to town centre by developing derelict buildings /empty shop proprieties for
residential a dwellings
Build on heritage and market aspects/ More recreational outlets - cinema and young people’s
activities. Keep uniqueness - don't turn Macclesfield into a clone town.
Building large, ugly 'entertainment hub' multiplex will drive people from the centre not encourage
them and will ruin the way the area looks. We don't want to look like every other unimaginative
town (see Stockport Plaza for how wrong this could go).
But just listen to people and drop the parking charges, minor change would promote and increase
foot fall in the town centre more than any other initiative.
But we need a market that exists on a Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. The stalls are so few it can't be
called a market. Should be like Treacle Market. And we need more speciality Fairs at weekends
But why was the Bus station moved to a location that requires a second bus journey from the
railway station when it was already across the road from it? Will it be moved within disabled access
in the near future?
Completely agree with most points, including enhancing the appearance and making the most of
heritage assets. Care must be taken not to over-focus on retail as this will lead to more empty shop
units.
Concentrate first on the existing shops in heart of town - letting in pawn shops, gambling, pound
shop etc into Chestergate was short sighted. If enhancing restaurants and cultural facilities building
development for multiplex cinema and filling new units with restaurants etc then NO
Considerable care is needed to develop the town centre and the proposed wording and sentiment
give confidence that due consideration will be given to any future proposals.
Create, preserve and enhance views from the town centre to the Peak District hills so that visitors to
the town centre feel they have been to the Peak District. The views are assets unique to
Macclesfield.
Current town centre is dreadful - a mix of unrelated developments. Do not allow single
developments without regard to the big picture
Danger that the town centre could become a bagel with a hollow centre
Develop low carbon incentivised parking / Infrastructure within the Town Centre
Page 45
Development should be sympathetic and reflect 21st century culture, not large faceless
development stores, independents and proactively ensure a balance of retail businesses.
Differential rate relief should be considered for town centre business against out of town shopping
centres
Do not agree that the small green area at bottom of Churchill Way should be destroyed
Do not compromise on the appearance of the Town Centre
Do Not want the planned redevelopment. existing shops could be structurally adapted , units too
small
Don't build any more new shopping malls / centres in Macclesfield - we've already got the Trafford
centre nearby, why do we need any more?? As for more employment why can't people work at the
Trafford Centre ??
Don't do this by 1) building Wilson Bowden cloned rubbish and destroying facilities such as the
heritage park ?????? + banishing elderly drivers to a multi storey car park on the edge of town
Drastic action required to halt the decline of the town centre. :- make parking free , reduce rents and
rates for businesses, provide decent public lavatories , get rid of chuggers, introduce good regular
markets , get bobbies back on the streets ,increase subsidies for bus's not reduce them , keep Tesco
the same size , clean up chewing gum , stop it raining so much! We don’t want big department
stores and multiplex cinemas-we can easily drive to these
Emphasis must be not to encourage large department stores so we end up the same as every other
town centre but to bring back some individuality and character back to the town. No use
encouraging more people to live within the town centre area when there is not sufficient parking
options. When you live within the zoned areas, permits should be at a minimal charge. Subsidised
parking on nearby car parks for home owners. Every week letters are sent to the local paper stating
that residents go to other areas within Cheshire east and pay far less to park than they do in
Macclesfield. Paying for parking after you have finished would be a fairer system and people
wouldn't be passing on their tickets to other parkers so might just bring in more revenue, even if the
initial layout was expensive. Maybe a smaller charge of evening hours/overnight parking could be
introduced and then daytime parking for shoppers reduced to encourage more consumers in. No use
a big multiplex cinema if no one comes because other facilities aren't available.
Emphasis should be on filling existing retail sites on Chestergate, Mill Lane etc before new
development. Much more town centre residential space needed. Better pedestrian access.
Ensure that Macclesfield maintains its identity. Plans so far for town centre could anytown,
anywhere.
Especially to create and maintain an appealing and neat appearance of streets, green spaces,
heritage sites and new developments. Comment: The Heritage Centre shop and the new visitor
centre/tourist information centre are fantastic - so inviting, great objects on sale.
Focus of unique shopping etc. Improve quality of any necessary redevelopment in keeping with old
heritage buildings, high quality materials and design NOT current Wilson Bowden proposals.
Fundamental to the success of these very worthy objectives is the issue of car parking. The present
system deters people living out of town. The system of car parks with prepay tickets is a strong
disincentive. It is not just the cost of the ticket but you need to have the right change available,
having parked, there is the threat that if you overstay, you get a £30 fine. All paying car parks should
be pay on exit with cash/card. Why not make the first two hours free or refundable by shops or
restaurants where you buy more than a specific amount? If you don't do something, people will go
elsewhere.
Generally laudable but reads like a political manifesto. Easy to say but much more difficult to deliver.
The town centre has been in decline for many years. It will require massive investment to lift it up
again.
Given people's tendencies to live their lives increasingly through the internet, particularly their
purchasing, and the current ongoing squeeze on consumer budgets this plan is very optimistic. The
Page 46
dilemma is that something must be done in the town centre and I do support the ambition of the
scheme. Flexibility will be very important in the strategy and there should be recognition of
Macclesfield as a gateway to the Peak District national park.
Good. I think this is the central part of the whole strategy - get this right and the town with feel like
it’s really going somewhere - enjoying the best of what is has, and its historical past, but looking to
the future too. Would like to see more about cycle routes into town - these are currently appalling
(as are most of the road routes into town in general).
High quality environmental enhancements are very expensive. Although desirable, basic
infrastructure improvements are more important
town centre. HIMOR Group is pleased to lend particular support to enhancing retail provision,
improving the appearance of streets and public spaces, and improving connectivity and linkages,
which are all identified as stated objectives of the town strategy. Pleased to support the aims and
objectives particularly the creation of a vibrant town centre. Support enhancing retail provision,
improving the appearance of streets and public spaces, and improving connectivity and linkages.
How this would be achieved when a lot of the shops are already closing down and Macclesfield
looking run down.
How can these objectives be achieved when no effort is made to fill properties, and museums and
libraries are being run down and CEC is hostile to tourism.
I agree for the need to make change in the town, but from what I can see the scale of the
development seems disproportionate to the size of the town. With big companies such as
Debenhams leading the way there will be less space for independent shops to flourish. Handforth
Dean is really only down the road, surely it is greatly hopeful that people from the northern
surroundings of town - Wilmslow, Handforth, Poynton and perhaps Prestbury - will come to
Macclesfield to do their leisure shopping when they have Handforth Dean, a bigger and more
substantial complex, only a few miles away. Parking for such a building is also a major problem, and
it appears to me that Macclesfield will therefore become one huge car park to service Debenhams,
surely this isn't good either!? Macclesfield has some unique and beautiful assets, streets such as,
Church Street, formerly Church Wall gate, for example. If there was more support for people to set
up their own businesses there, it would surely entice people to the town, and what a wonderful
welcome from the train it would be! Surely local distinctiveness is more attractive than franchise
blandness !?
I agree that the objective is desirable but have absolutely no faith in the Council being able to
achieve it. Where is the money coming from and how much of it will be wasted on the huge
overspends we have seen in the past. No mention of free parking which would encourage more
shoppers into the town centre and no mention of reduced business rates for town centre retailers to
attract new businesses.
I agree with most of the points in this section. The town centre can be encouraged to develop into a
thriving community of small independent shops and cafes but the one thing that I think would be a
mistake would be to redevelop large areas to make modern retail units with leisure areas and green
areas. The green areas already in existence cannot be maintained; they are overgrown and dirty and
just make an eyesore. If larger stores are to be encouraged into the town, redevelop existing empty
property like TJ Hughes.
I agree with the objective but again I feel that the proposals laid out in this consultation are in direct
contradiction to it. For that reason, I have to say that I disagree. The Unique heritage buildings such
as Paradise Mill and the Old Sunday School / Heritage Centre will be dwarfed and overshadowed by
the Wilson Bowden developments and views of the magnificent Christ Church and the Peak district
Hills will be lost from many parts of the town due to the inappropriate size and nature of some of
the proposed new buildings. The Town centre strategy says it will "enhance the appearance of the
town centre, maintaining and improving natural assets". However if proposals go ahead, one of the
few natural assets in the town centre - the Heritage Walk Garden will be replace with a 5 story
Page 47
department store."To require high quality design and materials linked to its historic heritage." I did
not see any evidence of high quality design or materials linked to historic heritage in the Wilson
Bowden design. It consists of low cost building materials and designs very similar to their
developments in other towns i.e. Wrexham."To improve the appearance of the town centre in terms
of its streets and public spaces". This could be most effectively achieved by demolishing ugly
buildings which detract from the town such as the Towers on Park St, Craven House, BT offices on
Hibel road and replacing them with more attractive designs. I would also like to see some of the
beautiful traditional buildings in the town, currently lying derelict, such as the Old Kings Head /
Three Pigeons sympathetically restored and brought back into use - these could become a superb
feature on Churchill way and would be seen by many who pass through the town. Instead The
proposed Wilson Bowden development just promises more of the planning mistakes of the 60s and
70s. I would like to see a town centre strategy which does not involve one major developer to whom
large chunks of the town centre will be sold off. Instead I would like to see the council supporting
local independent shops and initiatives such as the treacle Market by offering lower business rates,
and free parking for 2 hours so that they can compete with out of town supermarkets and shopping
areas where parking is already free. I believe that increased occupancy (and business in turn rates)
that the town centre will see in the long term will more than cover the initial loss of revenue.
I agree with these aims, but they seem completely at odds with the proposed Wilson Bowden
development. From the images I have seen of it, I cannot see that it will 'enhance heritage assets' or
provide 'high quality design linked to historic heritage' at all.
I am aware that similar proposals have been around for the past 20 years and I remain sceptical that
Macclesfield is of such importance to justify such a grand scheme and doubt the financing will ever
be viable.
I am concerned that these plans will divide Macclesfield into two separate areas- the old and the
new - and that the old part of Macclesfield will eventually become neglected as people are drawn to
the new area. I am concerned that this could result in there being insufficient funds to maintain it.
The historical part of Macclesfield will then lose its Market Town character and appear to be the
same as many other towns in England. I consider the historical part to be the 'heart' of Macclesfield.
I believe the town centre can thrive but must be developed as planned to create a more cohesive
and attractive focal point of the community
I do not agree with extending the core shopping area. In my opinion, the town centre is large enough
to cater for any future shopping development. Extending the area within the town centre will only
shift shopping habits and will result in more empty units in the traditional shopping areas. e.g. all the
shops have shut in Jordon gate. Developing the area south of Macclesfield for shopping will only
damage the town centre. In order to combat free parking at out of town shopping centres and free
parking at other small towns in Ches. East provide free parking for the first hour. Window shopping
leads to buying at the moment we are discouraged from window shopping in Macclesfield. You must
also encourage office work within the town centre, look at the hundreds and hundreds of jobs that
have been lost, e.g. Macc. Borough Council, Cheshire Building Society, Tax Office and more, all these
staff were potential shoppers at lunchtime & after work, all now gone.
I do not want to see a new department store.
I feel strongly that the pedestrianisation of the centre be retained. I see this as a real advantage
when shopping in the town centre. It is a safe environment. I would also be against any large
department stores or supermarkets being built out of the town centre. We must encourage a vibrant
centre and not encourage people to drive and shop at a one stop shopping outlet such as Tesco’s or
Sainsbury’s. We need quality high street shops on the high street. This might need a rethink on shop
rentals to encourage new businesses. We need less charity shops and cheap shops and more quality
businesses that will encourage shoppers from Macclesfield and the surrounding areas into the
centre.
I have no confidence that pedestrian areas will be properly policed. The present so-called pedestrian
areas are used by private and commercial vehicles with no attempt to control them. I personally
Page 48
asked at the police station why this was so, and was told that "there is no restriction on the use of
these streets". This is baffling, as areas such as that outside the Town Hall have signs at their edges
saying they are barred to vehicular traffic.
I hope performing and community resource includes a very large hall that can be rented very
cheaply
I hope that there will be particular emphasis on the high quality of the design of any new building.
The quality of most of the town-centre building over the last fifty years has been deplorable.
I hope we can afford to support this
I like Mary Portas' idea of introducing 'car boot sales' to the high street. I can see this working on
Chestergate and a good way of bringing people into town centre.
I like the town centre the way it is, many small businesses will lose out if larger shops take over the
town and Macclesfield will become just like all the other town centres a clone!
I recently visited Nantwich, and saw what Macclesfield could be - it seemed more attractive than
Macclesfield's pedestrianised area. I support your strategy to improve signage and enhancing the
appearance of the town centre. There are areas of poor quality paving / roadway / signage. These
detract from the feel of the town, giving areas a run down feel. Attention to detail could improve the
feel of the town for modest outlay. There are several areas with vacant / rundown buildings (burnt
out pub on Chestergate, empty office block on the hill near the Society Rooms / Park Green). These
tatty buildings and unused spaces ring the town centre. Your aim promote use of vacant buildings
appears very sensible and will help, but it is not clear how this will be achieved. There are some parts
of Macclesfield shopping streets with fantastic views to the hills and countryside to the east - unique
to Macclesfield. These could be exploited somehow.
I still consider that the cinema placed at the centre of town will cause more problems than it is trying
to solve. Parking issues, noise and disturbance to housing in Water Street, rubbish and cheap build
does not fit in with present historic buildings. Cinema should be on Lyme Green site with bowling
alley and could be linked with the south Macclesfield Development, Leave the site in town as a car
park.
I strongly agree with anything which enhances our town centre - as opposed to out of town
developments
I support almost all your objectives for the town centre, especially encouraging/making sure that
new town centre building design and materials connect with the towns architectural heritage. I
support increasing the number of people living in the town centre I recognise the value of museums
and libraries in the town centre
I support the improved access. As we have an increasing older population we need to ensure that all
developments meet their needs, e.g. safe pavements, non slip floors, clear signage, dry and
comfortable places to sit and rest, more toilets available (this could be by businesses making their
facilities available rather than new public toilets, which may increase their foot fall)
I think strong design is essential to providing a sense of forward looking and energy in our public
spaces. I don't see how this is going to be realised and I believe that it needs a single architectural
authority with design sensibilities for its delivery. Is this the case?
I think the most important objective is no.3 - connectivity and linkages are vital. The "Old Town" and
smaller independent and specialist shops must get the footfall and not suffer as a result of new retail
development but rather benefit from increased shopping and trade. The most important strategy
points are no’s 1,2,3,5,6,7 &14. In particular the older buildings, especially those housing the shops,
in the Town Centre need to be sympathetically developed & our architectural heritage preserved to
provide a unique shopping experience.
I try to avoid shopping in Macclesfield so have no strong views on the subject - I prefer to go to the
market towns as food is much cheaper and more varied
I would like to hope that our diverse range of independent shops would be valued above the
importation of more corporate superstores and food chains - we do not need any more
Page 49
supermarkets, "costas", clothing stores etc. we need more proper independent shops selling local
produce and individual items. I hope that "enhancing" the town centre will not remove all its original
and historic features to produce an identikit town centre that could be anywhere in Britain
I would like to see a much more active approach to improving brown-field sites and small areas of
wasteland. These should be converted into small housing schemes where appropriate, otherwise
landscaped, to turn unsightly areas into pretty ones.
I would like to see particular emphasis on providing housing within the town centre. I'd also like to
see the promotion of a cafe and restaurant culture to inject some life into the town in the evenings.
This in turn relies on improving the visual appeal of the town as no one wants to eat and drink
among dishevelled buildings.
I would like to see the strategy statement to provide "enhanced green and open spaces" expanded
to state "enhanced and expanded green and open spaces". In addition to the provision of "high
quality design and materials", I urge you to ensure that high rise development is protected against.
The views from the town towards the Peak District (north, east and south) are an irreplaceable asset.
I fear that those who make decisions, who do not live here, simply don't appreciate this. The
statement I refer to above would be better if it was expanded to say "high quality design and
materials sympathetic to the surrounding landscape and linked to the town's historic heritage"
railway station to the town centre it is in/near the town centre just put up some decent signs!
If consumers are to be drawn to the town centre, more free parking & reduced rate car parks need
to be offered
Imperative that we have Community Hall /Senior Citizens Hall may be funded by developers
Import some sunshine. A regular car boot in the centre of town and regular fruit and veg markets.
Important to keep the balance between "multiples" and the unique shops that make Macclesfield a
good place to shop.
Improve town centre shops and market provision. Opportunity to provide alternative use - Housing
Improve town centre. Develop dead retail area, derelict pubs and land into accommodation
Improve what we have. Make better car parking charges to encourage shoppers. Easy access to
public transport, cheaper fares to encourage more shoppers.
Improvement to the town centre is a good thing, as there are areas which could be put to much
better use. A lot of the empty accommodation over shops, or empty shops, mills and public houses
could be changed to housing, providing the character and heritage of the town are supported.
In the past the town had a thriving market and this should be encouraged to grow again.
Redevelopment of the existing shopping areas needs to be the priority with a bustling Mill street and
environs being the key. Developing the Churchill way site would also benefit the way the town looks.
Parking is a major deterrent to town centre rejuvenation. More accessible parking and more
reasonable parking fees need to be brought in. The development of the silk museum as a cultural
quarter would also encourage both local people and tourism. Possible incentives for major retailers
to come in to town
It is absolutely wrong to dilute the town centre by allowing spin-off developments. Wrexham is a
classic example of how NOT to do things. I grew up in Wrexham, my mother who is 81 has lived
there all her life. The town has been destroyed by planners; it is neither one thing nor the other. Less
mobile people cannot travel between the old town centre and Eagles Meadow, many find it easier to
take a bus to Chester and shop there, which offers an infinitely superior range of shops anyway.
It is difficult to disagree with the proposal but it does not make clear what it means by redevelop
appropriate parts of the town centre. The town centre is well liked and does need large scale
redevelopment. It certainly does not need to follow other towns where redevelopment has
promised lots and delivered nothing, and indeed has ruined what was there before.
Page 50
It is especially important to incorporate the maximum number of housing units within the new town
centre development. This will help to ensure a vibrant town centre, whilst helping to restrict
'sprawl'.
It is important that any new developments fit and blend with existing buildings.
It is the centre that needs most development. I agree with proposed improvements to the markets
and independent retailers (see above), showcasing heritage, quality landscaping, enhancing leisure
facilities, valuing the library and museums.
It is vital that the library is maintained and continually updated. Flexibility on use of buildings can be
considered to provide residential accommodation in commercial properties on the edge of town
centre. A cinema would be nice although it would also be great to keep cinemac -perhaps developed
into an arts centre?
Just get on with improving what we Maxonians have put up with for too long, through weak
planning decisions and poor conservation enforcement. Stop dithering before Macclesfield becomes
a ghost town in which no-one wants to spend time for any of your suggested outcomes. You could
start by reducing the iniquitous car park charges.
Keep commercial premises within the town centre - keep the town centre the focal point for this.
Keep it a market town
Large businesses need efficient transport links to get employees into work and products out.
Lets value our museums and libraries and provide a proper cinema for the town We must maintain
Macclesfield’s unique character
Looks good on paper. All depends on how it is going to be achieved. I wait and see.
Lots of commendable objectives - need a bit more "how" will this be achieved to give meaningful
comment. Definite scope for the town centre to be re-thought and improved - there are lots of good
shops / areas but as a town centre it doesn't flow / hang together as well as it could do because of
the way things are laid out.
Lots of empty factories, pubs, and derelict buildings, tax-office and sites along Churchill Way etc.
Macc 2020 response to town centre redevelopment very good in stating importance of mixed use
sustainable development for the town centre. Important to ensure views of countryside and hills to
the east of the town are maintained. Home working potentially important, Weavers Cottages are a
town feature, reconceptualise the combined work/living space for the online age, shared business
services for terraces of 21st century weavers cottages?, Design competition requiring high quality
design linked to Macc's historic heritage to initiate development?
Macclesfield has a real opportunity to build on its location and history. Quality restaurants; bars;
theatre; street entertainment; public realm & alfresco dining are all possible and will attract visitors
and locals alike. This will also provide reasons for visiting at night. Community events should be
backed to encourage growth and to attract visitors; spending their money in the town. Transport
interchanges need to give those arriving there a reason to get off and visit and their needs to be
signage that directs people into the town. Also need to look at interpretation signage to tell the
history about Macclesfield
Macclesfield town centre has suffered both from the recent economic problems, but from lack of
long term, sensitive planning. Congleton centre used to be drab but is now more attractive to shop
in than Macclesfield, whilst Leek town centre is a much more attractive place altogether.
Macclesfield Town Centre must be redeveloped to compete with major out of town retail sites
(Trafford Centre, Handforth Dean). Major Retailers such as Next and Curry's that have deserted the
town centre in favour of Lyme Green Retail Park must be encouraged to return. The vacant units at
Lyme Green could be used for the predicted industrial boom.
Make Macclesfield unique - not a clone of every other town.
More finance should be put into helping small businesses stay afloat through this economic crisis
More independent shops and support to survive.
More needs to be done in developing the town centre to open up the views that can be seen.
Page 51
Essential to provide good public transport within the town and to/from the adjacent villages to
minimise car use essential as people get older and unable to drive
More trees and flower beds
Most of this is a matter of private enterprise. CEC should not try to be too 'managing'. It cannot pay
for much of what it is projecting.
Mostly agree with objectives but not with strategy (valid for most objectives) similar to Obj1:
support and enhance existing infrastructure without new build
Much much more could and should be made of the market place. It should be a feature that brings
in residents and tourists alike (in the same way that, for example, French market towns appeal).
My concern is that I do not see how the proposed Wilson Bowden grand development will deliver
the objectives as described - and may conflict. Why is it not possible to have a much more focused
development plan that targets specifics within an overall vision for the town?
Natural England supports the aims in objective 2, particularly creating a vibrant town centre,
enhancing the public realm and the promotion of alternative uses of vacant town centre units. The
promotion and enhancement of the town centre is supported as this may reduce the pressure on
less sustainable locations for town centre uses. Other aims within objective 2 relating to improving
linkages and access around the town between bus and train stations are also supported as these
may increase the likelihood of people choosing more sustainable transport modes.
NB promote appropriate alternative uses of vacant town centre units and derelict buildings a
priority.
Need to enhance the town market, not particularly the Treacle Market which is a glorified arts and
craft market. A regular vibrant weekly or more often Town Market will do much more for the town.
Let market forces determine whether a theatre/entertainment venue is built. It is not part of
Cheshire East's responsibilities to build or support a theatre.
Needs redeveloping
Needs redeveloping
Needs redevelopment
needs redevelopment
Needs strong action and investment to put some life into it.
Needs to include need for training & skills for town centre developments
Objective 2 is agreed but it is curious there are no specific proposals for the town centre as though
everything is left to the current scheme promoted by Wilson Bowden under application 12/1212M.
There are other sites in and around the edge of the centre that require to be addressed in order to
meet the strategy objectives yet there is no discussion of these beyond the option of revising the
town centre boundary.
Objectives good so are the points in the strategy but how on earth is it possible to better links
Town/Station (Bus station already v. good)
ok
On line shopping will continue - town centre shops have long lacked a dept store to attract shoppers
to put homes back in main streets + keep town safer. Town needs to develop all the brown field
sites, need greenery around to attract visitors- not yet more housing on GB
Original period facades and street layouts should be retained as much as possible. Please do not be
seduced by artist’s representations of precinct type squares and cafe society layouts. At night these
will be desolate windswept litter strewn wastelands
Overall the strategy is commendable. However it is essential that the town develops its own
uniqueness and does not become another clone town with exactly the same multiple brands.
Shopping in Macclesfield needs to be an experience unlike anywhere else particularly Manchester
City Centre or the Trafford Centre and it can do this by encouraging small local and regional
businesses in the way the Treacle Market does drawing people not just from its immediate
catchment but further afield. This may mean assistance for smaller start up companies possibly
Page 52
subsidised by larger multiples. There also needs to be a diversity of leisure offer especially in the
evening at present it is too focussed on a younger, pub culture with a lack of family or cultural
options.
Overall the strategy is sensible; I like the idea of "quarters" to segment the town into retail, historic
etc. I agree with the need to make Macclesfield attractive to visitors and tourists and to do this
through its traditional historic links with silk. Rather than just targeting links with Chinese silk
makers, I strongly recommend examining a link with Italian textile industry, which has protected its
manufacturing of very high end textiles (as used by top designers). As a European partner there
could be much to learn in redeveloping a niche for top end silk manufacturing. With regard to the
town centre planning, I believe that we should protect the wonderful family businesses that are still
operating in Macclesfield today, and the self employed small business owners. A balance of big
business and the family/traditional business and creative businesses needs to be developed. In many
urban areas, low rents for crafts people and artistic/creative businesses can provide vibrancy, attract
visitors and increase the profile of a town. I would like to see areas where housing with
workshop/shops/studio combined is available at affordable rents to encourage the development of
arts and crafts people. So that craft, arts, design people can live, produce and sell from their own
studio/shop.
Parking in the town centre is a nightmare- should be much cheaper
Persuade the shops etc which have moved out of town to come back by reducing rates
Please improve accessibility by reducing the ridiculous car parking charges. I do as much shopping on
Sunday as possible to escape paying them. 50p per hour, £1 for 3 is not unreasonable but 70p does
not seem to contribute to anything to improve the town. Please improve the appearance of the
Town centre by cleaning up or clamping down on chewing gum. It is vile walking down Mill St,
Chestergate. Instead of fancy mosaics, please could the area at the back of Smiths/Poundland be
litter free I understand why the current Mill St town centre is unsuitable for larger premises as
required by large retailers (e.g. Next moved out) but to completely move it away and spread the
town out even more seems strange. Could we not redevelop the hideous Grosvenor centre and
allow the small shops in there to use existing premises on Mill St so that larger retailers like
Debenhams can move back. As maintaining the historical aspects of town are important to you, it
would be no loss to lose the buildings that make up the old TJ/ textile shop. Town signage could be
instantly improved by removing foliage, cleaning the signs and repainting white lines. I recently
helped a lady who was lost trying to get from Buxton to Chester and I sat in her car while she drove
through town from the Buxton Rd to the Fire Station. Most of the signs were obscured.
Please keep car parking charges reasonable to avoid deterring shoppers visiting the town centre.
Preserve, enhance and showcase heritage assets as a key point. I really think that the nature of the
new development does not adhere to this! I am very interested in Architecture and I do understand
the costs involved, however I think we have a much better opportunity to enhance Macclesfield than
the proposed development. The new development does not lend itself well. I have lived in and seen
places that have had large retail development change and this is not the way forward for the size of
our town.
Promote Macclesfield town centre as a focus for shopping, business, leisure, tourism and community
facilities. Support the redevelopment of appropriate parts of the town centre. Preserve, enhance
and showcase heritage assets. Enhance the appearance of the town centre, maintaining and
improving natural assets, providing enhanced green and open spaces and taking opportunities to
provide quality landscaping. Take opportunities to improve the quality of developments by requiring
high quality design linked to its historic heritage. Improve the retail offer of the town centre with
particular emphasis on attracting and retaining a good mix of multiples and independent shops.
Support and enhance the existing market provision and alfresco activity. Enhance the leisure offer
and improve restaurants and cultural facilities. Support the provision of community facilities
including a community and performing resource and a theatre/entertainment venue. Enhance the
streets and public spaces, gateways, public conveniences and signage in the town. Promote
Page 53
appropriate alternative uses of vacant town centre units and derelict buildings - strongly agree
Increase opportunities to live in the town centre - by development of existing properties and
brownsite land. Improve access and linkages, including disabled access, around the town centre
providing better links with Railway and Bus Stations - details of how this will be achieved are
required which minimise greenhouse emissions. Recognise the value of museums and libraries to
the town centre - this should be very much encouraged and support e.g. subsidy of entrance fares to
Silk museum.
Proper markets - not rogue traders with "knock off"
Provision of community resource most important
Rather than trying to expand the town centre boundaries, concentrate on reviving the current town
centre. Building houses on demolished brown sites would enhance the centre greatly, rather than
leaving them empty and unsightly carbuncles.
Redevelopment of the town centre needs to be done sensitively and with an aim to preserve the
independent spirit of Macclesfield. The current Wilson Bowden plans do not fit with these criteria,
nor those outlined in the town strategy! The use of derelict buildings should be prioritised.
Reduce the number of empty units by offering lower rents, improve the external signage and raise
shop front presentation standards. Keep the town centre clean. Maximise the market town feel there are plenty of new towns with bland shopping centres, offer something different. There are
little alleyways that could be tidied up and sign posted in the way the Lanes are in Brighton - add
plenty of independent units. Keep any development low rise, in sympathy with the existing
architecture. Open areas out for alfresco dining but don’t' charge owners through the nose for this.
Redevelop ugly derelict buildings. Improve the green spaces - there are so few in the town centre sign post them, add seating, keep them clean. Add to them. I was disappointed to see Caroline
Simpson's quote in the Macc Express that the distinctiveness of the town centre would come from a
cinema and car park! Every town has these, they are not features. CineMacc is a great facility and a
multiplex cinema would just place a large bland windowless box in the middle of the town centre.
Place it on the old Barracks mill site near Tesco instead. There is plenty of car parking in the town
centre already.
Regenerating the existing area of the town centre is far more important than large new
developments.
Retail businesses are closing down due to the economic recession. Redesigning the centre of
Macclesfield won't make the recession go away, will there be even more empty buildings?
Retail in the high street is a dying trade, why promote it? Better to focus on online trading and use
the space in the town centre for decent leisure facilities - how long have we be promised a Cinema
etc for example?
Parking is prohibitively expensive at the moment and one reason why I often to not go into town for
some shopping and instead use the supermarkets
This strategy is weak. We should be getting rid of the bad parts of the town centre and replacing
with sufficient quality housing so that people will want to live in the centre. If you just build a few
homes who is going to want to live in a town which at night can be like the wild west. There has to
be a critical mass of housing built in the centre. Are you able to share the calculation carried out
about whether the home planned for the town centre are enough to make a difference or just infill
Should abandon the awful Wilson Bowden Plans. And the idea of Zoning a small town like Macc is
ludicrous
So many town centres, including Macclesfield's, are clones of each other. Time to change this by
enhancing the best of the old and bringing in more innovative design for the new.
Some of it is ok, but you need to think about improving the current town centre before expanding it.
If you expand too quickly, empty shops and failed businesses would be much more visible. Improve
what you’ve currently got to a high standard then expand gradually.
Strategy second bullet point “ what does appropriate” mean? Rather coy compared with ref to
Page 54
SMDA in foregoing item
Support is given to the objective to create a vibrant town centre, including through its appropriate
redevelopment. The town centre offer, including its public realm and evening economy, needs
rejuvenating and there are longstanding plans to achieve this through proposals for new
development “ currently subject of a major planning application. New residential development will
give rise to new spending power which in turn helps create the right conditions for investment in the
town centre.
Support Objective 2 of the Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy, in particularly the emphasis on the
continued provision of leisure facilities in the town centre. Whilst we support the general
improvements proposed for the town centre, we consider that these should not be made at the
detriment of existing facilities. The Town Strategy should ensure that a range of leisure uses are
provided for all age groups in order to ensure that Macclesfield remains a vibrant town in the future.
Support provision for existing community facilities, which are few and far between, should not be
overlooked, especially those for elderly population. Where specific existing and well used facilities
are to be lost, a suitable replacement should be provided.
Support Objective 2 which sets out a vision for creating a vibrant town centre and promoting the
town as a focus for shopping, business, leisure, tourism and community facilities, in accordance with
both national and local policy.
The "Increase opportunities to live in the town centre" strategy could be achieved by refurbishing or
redeveloping some of the buildings such as unused mills into affordable flats. But does the council
have any such plans? All of the development options given are in the Green Belt or adjacent to it.
Also, does the Council have powers to enforce the clearance of derelict unused sites? If so, the
council should use those powers much more quickly.
The acknowledgement of the importance that housing can play in supporting the Town Centre is
supported. The delivery of further housing will increase expenditure in the town which will benefit
existing commercial activity and help generate further growth, which is an essential part of the
NPPF.
The Consultation Document is fundamentally flawed because it fails to define what constitutes
"Macclesfield Town", what area is included or excluded and why. For example, is it the map on page
16 which includes part of Gawsworth or Henbury ? There is nothing to define the criteria by which
the boundary of "Macclesfield Town Centre" is established - why is Sainsbury excluded when it is
barely one street away from the proposed definition. Given that there are tentative planning
applications for the Tesco and adjacent sites on Hurdsfield, why is this site being excluded from the
Development options on page 16. There are also some contradictions in the Development Options
e.g. successful retail development in the SMDA could well damage prospects for Town Centre
development.
The current car park area with the Heritage Centre and Tesco on either side needs very careful
thought. Traffic should be completely removed from this area. Access to the likes of Tesco and M&S
for deliveries should be via Castle Street (some property would have to be demolished) i.e. where
the current passageway is located. This traffic should enter/exit Castle street from Cumberland
Street. (This would require some development of the entrance to Castle Street and change of
direction.) Taxis and parking for disabled badge holders should be located off Churchill Way. By not
allowing any traffic in this area it will stop traffic moving along past Poundland to Market Street. The
proposal of a green area here is excellent. If a cafe culture could be encouraged it would be good,
e.g. encourage the Heritage Centre Coffee shop to develop outside the building. (Do not know
planning requirements in respect of a listed building) Consideration should be given to some free car
parking to attract people i.e. first two hours free.
The current plans for the town centre are not appropriate for THIS town
The current town centre needs to be improved and all out of town retail should be banned until the
town centre is back to its former glory. No further out of town development should be allowed in
the south and west of the town. The council need to look at other local towns like Leek to see how
Page 55
things can be done.
The currently proposed re-development associated with Wilson-Bowden does not follow the
strategy
The heritage of Macclesfield is mentioned in the strategy, but more emphasis could be placed on the
historic environment and the early origins of the town which is mentioned in Domesday and was
granted a borough charter in the 13th century.
The historic nature of the town centre must be preserved.
The idea of creating a "historic area" around Christ Church has been floated and seems like a good
idea.
The improvement of the existing centre should be the priority.
The last improvement to the town centre was to make it bland and boring. Pay for an expert next
time.
The Macclesfield Town Strategy has the stated intention to re-develop and improve the town centre
but there does not appear to be a master plan which commits to the delivery of a large number of
housing units within the town centre.
The need to develop the town in sympathy to its historic routes. Quality shops and alfresco spaces in
the town centre sound great. Use of natural stone materials, cobbles and trees would help make the
area visually more appealing to shop in.
The objectives and strategy for economic prosperity in Macclesfield are fine, however I feel that
these very broad aims along with the others e.g. Town Centre have been used to put a positive
interpretation on the entire strategy while playing down the negative impact of the proposed
housing developments. Including new / modern well design apartment and housing in town centre /
city centres has revitalised the areas (this can be seen from Manchester's development of the city
centre.
The only issue is whether you can do it! The record of the last two decades is truly abysmal.....
The present Wilson Bowden town redevelopment planning application demonstrates little
recognition of current retail and lifestyle trends and fails to demonstrate any forward-thinking in
designing a vibrant and desirable centre that takes into account future retail and housing needs. Far
more imagination needs to be focused on providing more mixed accommodation and facilities in the
centre of town, using more brown field sites and making useable the 350 houses presently
unoccupied.
The proposed car park in Park Lane dominates the historic properties over the road. The proposed
cinema will have a detrimental effect on Cinemac and therefore the Silk Heritage Trust income.
The protection, identification; planning and timely delivery of water supply and sewerage
infrastructure should be a major consideration for the plan. To meet the requirements of the
National Planning Policy Framework [Framework] the Council must provide strategic policies. To
facilitate the timely delivery of infrastructure for water supply, wastewater and flood risk In addition,
the Council [via Local Plans] should: Plan positively for the development and infrastructure required
in the area to meet the objectives, principles and policies of the Framework; and Assess the quality
and capacity of infrastructure for water supply, wastewater and its treatment, utilities, health, flood
risk; surface water and its ability to meet forecast demands. Unfortunately the plan has not taken
into consideration the quality and capacity of infrastructure for water supply; wastewater; its
treatment and/or flood risk. The Council should therefore redraft the plan and include comments
that: Satisfies requirements of the Framework for the provision of infrastructure for water supply,
wastewater and flood risk; and Assesses the quality and capacity of infrastructure for water supply,
wastewater and its treatment, utilities, health, flood risk and its ability to meet forecast demands.
The provision of market facilities should be good enough to attract the volume & quality of
Page 56
stallholder that privately organised & farmers' markets do.
The provision of a purpose-built cinema is also essential
The strategy doesn't adequately support the objective. Arts, culture and performance facilities will
create a vibrant town centre by bringing in residents, and - where there is quality or a distinctive
product - tourists. There must be a range of arts/culture/entertainment facilities - for community
use, satisfying unmet demand for culture in the town and for drawing in visitors. A multi-use space
doing everything won't work. There should be a good mix of multiples and independent shops, but
experience nationwide tell us that this is rarely achieved without a clear vision and innovative
support for local businesses. Hoping for a 'good mix' will not do it.
The strategy should go further than merely seeking to promote appropriate alternative uses of
vacant town centre units and derelict buildings (11th bullet, page 8). It should commit to changing
them to housing if at all feasible in order to fulfil housing needs
The strategy should go further than merely seeking to promote appropriate alternative uses of
vacant town centre units and derelict buildings (11th bullet, page 8). It should commit to changing
them to housing if at all feasible in order to fulfil housing needs. There are also, no doubt, other
potential employment sites which could be re-allocated for mixed use or for housing but the
employment land report is still awaited.
The strength of the current town centre is that it is large enough to have a range of shops and
services and is easy to access. Expand too much and this unique feature will be lost. The policy of
parking charges needs careful consideration. If it costs too much to 'pop into town' you will
discourage use.
The town centre need priority over out of town retail sites.
The town centre development has been postponed many times. A clear decision needs to be made,
and then we need quick action to get things moving. The town centre development should include
entertainment (cinema/ restaurants/ etc) in addition to new retail sites.
The Town Centre Development plan is distinct from the Local Plan, and is the subject of much
criticism. It should not be mixed in with the Local Plan.
The town centre has been blighted by Council inactivity in the past and the continued mess caused
by the ridiculous Wilson Bowden scheme(s). Put an end to this and we can move forward without a
mass, eco-unfriendly building site in the centre of town that such a scheme will cause. The past 50
years of Town planning in Macclesfield have been a disgrace - all those involved should probably be
pursued for the environmental damage they have caused. There are 60 or so buildings built since
1950 that should be demolished and those involved should be taken to court. I hope this will finally
end.
The Town Centre has to be a focal point for the town.
The town centre is a disgrace. I can’t remember the last time I shopped there.
The town centre is attractive and the pedestrianised centre makes for a pleasant shopping
experience. I would not agree with a large development which would potentially overwhelm the
centre and be too ambitious for the town scale. This would spoil the town heritage and reduce its
attractiveness to residents and tourists.
The Town centre is boring at the moment and needs a bit of a lift. We need branded shops to
encourage people to visit the town.
The town centre is in need of a makeover to reduce the number of empty properties, charity shops
and the like which now populate it.
The town centre is potentially very attractive. The buildings down the high street (Mill Street) have
the potential to make the centre and attractive period market town. However much is run down.
The pedestrianised areas lack character. The vision for the centre by Macclesfield appointed
architects was terrible. Also when visiting the centre it feels like a depressing northern mill town as
one is greeted with ugly car parks on the peripheries and driving down Hibel road Macclesfield feels
like an eyesore. The town centre feels very closed off and unwelcoming to visitors and residents
Page 57
alike. There are no large green spaces in the centre like Knutsford, Sandbach and Wilmslow. I would
not stop if I was a tourist as I cannot see anything attractive from the roads surrounding the centre.
The town centre is scruffy and in need of investment. Fully agree with the council's vision.
The town centre must be attractive and utilised. The 'Treacle Market' has energised the centre.
The town centre must serve working families. For those of us working out of town during the day
Monday to Friday, it can be very difficult to utilise some of the shopping facilities in town.
Encouraging shops to open in the evenings would be helpful.
The town centre needs bulldozing and rebuilding
The town centre needs smartening up for sure with low rents to encourage businesses back to
Macclesfield.
The town Centre Plan on display in the Town Hall effectively blocks out the visible landscape which is
a chief attraction.
The town centre plan should concentrate on supporting independent and niche shopping,
restaurants and the markets to play to our strengths. No detail of what is meant by a
theatre/entertainment venue. The evidence of re-development plans are not encouraging. There
should be no flat roofed concrete blocks - new building should be in local style and using appropriate
materials. The vistas from the centre should be kept. The plan tends to say this - but evidence is
lacking. Shop fronts and signs should be regarded as part of the structure of the town and owners
discouraged from flat fronts and plastic signs with no regard for the building as a whole. Landlords of
derelict buildings should be required to keep them in a sound state and not let them decay
(deliberately) to avoid rates - e.g. kings head/three pigeons on Chestergate.
The Town Centre redevelopment turns its back on what exists within the town and instead tries to
replace it with new commercial enterprises that will not feedback prosperity to the locality. In no
way do these plans highlight the silk trade, but instead mock the principle with lacklustre references
to threads and ribbons. The proposed new development will not promote and strengthen anything
that exists, but will instead detract and focus spending in a new town centre dominated by National
and International brands that will siphon cash flows out of our town. Vacant buildings are not being
utilised in the scheme they are instead being levelled and replaced with monolithic warehouse style
architecture that bears no individual character unique to Macclesfield. They almost certainly are not
proposing to increase opportunities to live in the town centre, with a net gain of 5 homes, that is
hardly a drastic increase over a development likely to cost in the region of £150 million.
The Town centre should be carefully considered the townsfolk should be listened too, the towns
night life should be also considered, a good town centre s night life usually condense pubs and clubs
and take-aways in a square mile, so policing is simple
The town centre should be left alone - if you want to create more jobs do it out of town - the idea of
bringing more people into the town is not welcome, the town need not be any bigger. No more new
shops in the town centre, we don't want a bigger town - Manchester is only up the road, we don't
need any more shops / economy - if you want to create more jobs do it in Manchester, it’s only a
train ride away
The town centre should not be redeveloped just for the sake of it - there is currently barely enough
business to keep all the existing shops trading, let alone building any more. The idea of the Trafford
Centre is to allow shops to centre in one location, thus keeping beautiful surrounding market towns
free from big shopping arcades & complexes, and congestion. Why would Macclesfield want to try &
compete with the Trafford centre & bring shoppers in from elsewhere? If it is merely for
employment reasons then those jobs should be located at the Trafford Centre rather than trying to
turn Macclesfield into a city. There should be enough shops for the existing requirement of
Macclesfield & no more.
The Town Centre strategy does not identify a proposal to provide a cinema. The strategy also needs
to stipulate the provision of retail sites at affordable council tax to stimulate occupancy.
The town needs to create its own identity rather than being a carbon copy of other towns. The town
Page 58
needs to have its own USP's otherwise it will become a victim of out of town developments and
large shopping centres
The town would benefit from small businesses, there are far too many empty units. These could be
offered at reduced rents. Emphasis on local businesses is needed.
The word cultural appears in the first bullet point for the Objective not is not repeated in the first
bullet point for the Strategy for continuity please add the word cultural as this does not have the
same meaning as leisure. Thank you for including the provision of a theatre/entertainment venue
which also is reflected in the Strategy for Community Facilities and in the Southern Silk Quarter.
There are many unused commercial spaces in the town centre. I think the focus should be on using
the existing spaces to their full potential before planning new spaces.
There is a huge need for a creative hub, analogous to the Buxton Opera House. A venue for gigs,
concerts, events. Such a place is singularly missing. The area around the railway station, and
Sunderland Street, need a make-over; but this should build on the lead presented by the newly
opened bars and cafes on Sunderland Street itself. It does not need demolition and a radical-reworking: it needs a damn good paint job, refurbs and cleaning. This is the area of the town seen by
so many as they pass by on trains; and it looks dismal. The Council needs to be far more willing to be
brutally cheap in its parking policies; and, in some instances, more flexible. There are gems in our
present town like the fishmongers on Roe Street who are severely penalised by the refusal to allow
customers to pull up for a few minutes outside the shop; a live and let live policy, based on common
sense rather than a literalism that can destroy trade, would be enormously beneficial. Encourage the
Treacle Market to be two weekly. Focus on the creative use of the town square. And never even
dream of running the library down. Indeed, build on what is now developing - a new community
spirit driven by a younger generation of inhabitants. The Young Mums of the town have shown the
way forward - Barnaby, the Treacle Market, the brilliant Just So Festival. If you look at the town
through their eyes rather than your own, then supporting Cinemac becomes a better option than
building a multiplex cinema. This is what the town is becoming: a small business, creative centre that
needs to reflect, at its centre, echoes emanating from this new community. If the Majestic went
under in the town, what price the downfall of an attempt to duplicate Parrs Wood? People in this
town go to Handforth Dean, Cheadle and the Trafford Centre. Macclesfield is none of these and
shouldn't even attempt to be so. It needs to work with the emerging retailers and small companies
to prevent it sinking into the abyss of clone towndom. We should never, ever, become Wrexham.
There is a need to find something to do with the town centre that will be relevant to 2030! Shopping
is not it! Housing?
There is a need to improve the transport links, but without spoiling a well proportioned community
There is little evidence to date of the council promoting and strengthening the markets or promoting
the town centre as a focus for shopping.
There is no recognition of the rapid change in shopping due to the use of internet retailers - the
assumption is that a traditional centre will continue to be attractive and well-used in 20 years' time.
This needs more thought and consultation with younger residents.
There is opportunity to redevelop disused building and shops for town centre living and this should
be pursued further before new homes are built on green belt. .
There needs to be a young and vibrant feel to the town centre without attracting so many of the
short term retailers who only draw attention to the lack of long term commitment and investment.
The 'silk' connection needs to be more obvious, with walking trails made more obvious to link the
historical sites. Individual and traditional catering outlets (such as Cherry Blossom Bakery) are a
refreshing change from the universal coffee outlets and should be offered incentives to support their
long term viability. Mill street needs a complete overhaul, with the sort of planting and signage
enjoyed by Knutsford. Sunderland Street needs a lot of work to improve first impressions from
visitors arriving at the train station. Rents and rates for empty shops should be reduced to
encourage independent retailers. The refurbished Town Hall should be in use constantly for events,
exhibitions etc and Christ Church would be an ideal site for an arts centre. A modern and welcoming
Page 59
third sector hub should be considered in a town centre location, bringing together the struggling
charities and organisations who currently operate in dingy premises with poor access and lack of
parking. I feel that at present, if Marks and Spencer were to leave that the town centre would
collapse.......
There needs to be encouragement for people to shop in town centre-free car parking would be a
great incentive for people to come and shop in Macclesfield at present the shops are having great
difficulties in high rates and low numbers of customers. Help them not hinder-just look at numbers
of empty shops.
There seems to be little real effort to revitalise the Town Centre in any meaningful way. There is no
real attempt to attract small shops, as opposed to branches of national chains.
This area of the town most definitely needs improving and I support the ideas for this area
This is what we are all looking for but CEC seems to stumble on this every step of the way. Rates are
too high, even for market stall holders...CEC are suffocating the businesses in town.
This section makes me feel we have been here before, commented on a comprehensive plan to
redevelop the town centre, seen the resulting model altered, delayed, and presumably finally
abandoned. Will the same result befall this exercise? Councils round here appear to be great at
consultation but not so good on delivery.
To create a vibrant town centre as it was - the Council should take out the pedestrianised areas
which make the town centre inaccessible and seem to simply encourage youths to hang around. We
rarely go into Macclesfield as one has to park so far from the shops and need to walk distances
through what are now pedestrianised area. Open up the town centre and let it breath and allow
people to drive in and access the shops !!
To develop housing in the town centre, how will you attract people there? Answer life style, the
thing that is being destroyed by the lack of vibrant and interesting shops. The only growth area in
town is in the charity retail sector, the empty shops give the whole area a somewhat grim and
depressing feel, this will not attract the future home owners.
Tourism potential also has international dimensions linking it to the conference facility proposals.
Town centre development never started. Develop this area first
Town CENTRE is the operative word. This means centralising, not spreading. It's good to see the
proposal to "Support and enhance the existing market provision" as this has been sadly neglected
for very many years and has only been revitalised because non-council people have got involved.
Unfortunately there is little evidence that high quality design has been achieved in the recent past.
There is considerable scope in improving both the Heritage Centre and the Silk Museum.
Unless you want a mobile phone or to visit a charity shop there is no reason to visit the town centre.
The town has been left to deteriorate over many years by lack of vision from the council. People now
travel to out of town retail parks i.e. the Trafford centre and it will take a lot more than what is being
proposed to tempt people back to the town.
Until the roads infrastructure is vastly improved for people to actually be able to get into the town
centre there seems little point in having a vision which cannot be sustained.
Use redundant buildings accommodation, over shops etc for residential to bring people to live in
Town Centre
Using empty buildings and continuing to encourage events in the town is vital. At the moment the
town is pretty one-dimensional in the evening with plenty of pubs but a shortage of quality
restaurants, a purpose- built cinema or decent theatre/ concert venue. To make the centre more
accessible to more people in the evenings would be a major improvement.
using redundant/ derelict buildings for accommodation to help bring people back into the town
centre
Very strongly agree on promoting the alternate use of vacant town centre units and buildings
WE DO NOT NEED A NEW "TOWN SQUARE" - WE ALREADY HAVE THE MARKET PLACE WHICH IS
WHERE THE MARKET SHOULD BE. WHY ALLOW THE TREACLE MARKET THE PRIVILEDGES AND NOT
Page 60
THE REGULAR IMPORTANT MARKET PEOPLE. CHURCHILL WAY CAR PARK PROVIDES THE IDEAL SITE
TO DEVELOP INTO A MAJOR M.S. CAR PARK WITH STORES BENEATH WITH LITTLE ALTERATION TO
EXISTING ROADS AND THE PROSPECT OF LINKAGE TO ESTABLISHED COMMERCE.
We do not need any more big stores. Invest in the ones we already have.
We need an arts/exhibition centre/space.
We need more retail in the centre and to concentrate on the heritage of Macclesfield.
We need to emphasise the liveability of the town centre, which means better, and more efficient
housing, improved connectivity, and much higher quality green infrastructure and broadband.
We need to ensure that the town centre remains diverse with retail units with a local base that
residents and visitors wish to visit. Use existing buildings rather than new build which sometimes
make town centres look alike. For example the new retail area in Bath, although obviously not fully
comparable, has been designed to blend with historic buildings and adds to rather than detracts
from its surroundings. A high standard of maintenance with the required budgets will be needed to
show that the areas are valued and cared for. This will then add to the perceived value of the town
as a top destination.
We support the town centre objective and strategy, assuming that making the town centre
accessible includes a genuine attempt to improve pedestrian and cycle access into and across the
urban area.
When there are currently so many empty shops, why not tackle that problem first
While the essence of what is written sounds good, the underlying implications are dreadful; 'support
alternative use for empty units'? So we use empty shops for other things, then build more shops?
This does not make sense. The priority should be to encourage people to occupy those empty shops
& enhance our town centre's diversity. Redevelopment of the town centre - How does moving the
town centre help? We have a town centre, it is part of our heritage, we do not want it moved. What
we would like to see is a genuine utilisation of the Market Place, as we have been seeing recently.
Whilst it is important to provide for the car, it should not be at the expense of the town centre
environment. Car parks need to be on the edge of town centre where possible. There is too much
traffic in the centre. The Tesco issue needs to be addressed. They will close the town centre store if
they get their expansion at Hurdsfield Road, & will undermine the town centre. Treacle market is
great, but can we have the Market in the Market Place please. It is what it is for! I am glad to see the
emphasis on design standards. We do not need identikit glass buildings.
Why make a market town resemble a city centre? A more sympathetic development is needed.
With dwindling retail opportunities and use of C.B.S do we need so much new retail development?
Would like to see all high street premises occupied, more high street names and specialist shops in
Macclesfield.
Would like to see all the old buildings in the town centre protected.
Yes we should be showcasing our heritage in order to standout from other local towns. There is a
'bottom up' movement supporting this through the treacle market, heritage centre activities and
Barnaby. We should give this a much support as possible - this is Macclesfield people wanting to
make the most of Macclesfield - we MUST tap into this. The redevelopment of the town centre plans
over the last few years have been a fiasco. Rather than working on something so large that never
actually happens we should focus on smaller things that do actually happen and thus can make a
difference. The smallest good deed is better than the grandest good intention.
You need to do something brave that attracts people to Macclesfield and builds on the past such as
the cocoon theatre based on the silk theme of the past but attracting opera, theatre and youth
activities
You need to promote shopping by reducing parking charges or refunding charges following
consumer spend
Page 61
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Housing
Page 62
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Housing
Do you agree or disagree with the Housing Objectives and Strategy as set out in the draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy?
• Strongly Agree (7.1%); Agree (19.6%); Neither Agree or Disagree (21.2%); Disagree (19.6%);
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
"Deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new sites by 2030" I disagree that more homes are needed.
There is not a homeless crisis in the UK despite the constant incorrect statements by headline
grabbing politicians that there is a lack of housing. Virtually every available green space that has
become available in Macclesfield has been developed over the past 20 years and now it seems the
council is considering developing greenbelt. This is flawed logic - greenbelt was created to prevent
uncontrolled growth of the towns - if we have reached the stage where we are considering
developing greenbelt then something has gone wrong (i.e. overpopulation) and this needs to be
addressed otherwise the problem will just be compounded. This will lead to even more congested
roads and overburdened facilities in the town and again contribute to Macclesfield becoming a much
less appealing place. People need housing but they also need space.
"Sustainable" should embrace flexibility for affordable homes to be on large enough plots to enable
self build expansion. Consider also almshouse type courtyards for sheltered housing.
1) "Increase number of people living in the town centre" could be achieved by refurbishing or
redeveloping some of the buildings such as unused mills into affordable flats. 2) I am surprised by
and disagree with the strategy that as many as "3500 homes on new sites by 2030" are required.
Someone has presumably multiplied up the "318 affordable homes per year between 2009 & 2014"
need that was estimated in the 2010 Assessment. 3) For any new housing development to be
sustainable, the most vital element is that "the required infrastructure is in place"
3,500 homes roughly equates to a population increase of approximately 15,000, close to 30% how
does the Council justify this figure?
3,500 new homes, plus cars etc. Something the town does not need. Where are the people on the
social housing list currently? You talk about the need for houses but make no mention of the
number of empty homes, which I have read was over 2,000 in March of this year Obviously there is a
need for some more housing but we do need not need to turn Macclesfield into a sprawling mess of
Page 63
suburbs, something which has ruined many other towns. Do so, and in 20 years time there will be
cries for more. Traffic problems have to be considered here, and the only place to find more homes
is in town. The success of the redevelopment of the Hurdsfield tower blocks show that building up is
a real possibility. Park House is crying out to be utilised as such, and there are still mills that could be
redeveloped. Such housing is ideal for young people, around town, close to the railway station etc.
The green field sites to the north, west and south of the town should be sacrosanct. Any
development on green field sites is likely to make the town less attractive to the very people you are
trying to attract.
3,500 too many. Make more use of unoccupied houses
3500 extra houses in the local area seems a very large number to me. Existing brown field sites that
should be developed are the old TA centre and the dis-used factory at the southern end of Churchill
Way.
3500 houses sound high density and primarily Green Belt areas which are not in town
3500 is a ludicrous number. We benefit from less social housing than in inner city areas and this puts
LESS of a strain on services. Housing is affordable in comparison with many other areas and we
should build few houses, yet those of a similar nature to those here at present
3500 new homes sounds a lot to me. I would like to see a specific commitment to building 'green'
homes, with a high level of insulation and efficient heating systems, to reduce fuel consumption and
running costs.
A nice idea but currently the housing market is not working. We can build more houses to prop up
jobs but we have a serious shortage of buyers and this is going to continue. More empty houses?
New schemes to help utilise empty buildings should be key. Support through the schemes that are
shared buying and housing realistic to a market that is truly affordable housing. I am not in favour of
the plans to build on Green Belt.
Sustainable in Strategy 3 should mean no new development without green features. Does it?
As well as the town centre objectives identifying housing there is a further Housing objective to
increase the number of people living in the town centre, however nothing identified in the strategy
to do this. The Housing objectives and strategy section is quite brief, however it does recognise the
need for a mix of tenures across the town including affordable housing and elderly persons housing,
however as can be seen from the SHMA 2010 there is a clear need for a significant amount of new
affordable housing including older persons affordable housing. Only a fraction of the need for
affordable housing in Macclesfield is being met at present.
According to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), there is a shortage of
housing and housing land in the Macclesfield area, and in the SHLAA the site is referred to on page
3275 as being a site suitable for consideration for housing development, for a potential 237 houses.
In the Macclesfield Town Strategy, more details are given of the estimated housing requirement for
the next 20 years, and the site is described as a potential area for housing development, and being
capable of delivering about 240 houses (Page 16, Area E). No other prospective sites of any
significance exist on the east side of Macclesfield, all the others being to the South and Southwest,
where there are already problems of traffic congestion. Development of this site would spread the
distribution of new homes more evenly. The major beneficiary, if this site were developed for
housing, would be East Cheshire Hospice, our largest local charity, whose benefit to the community
is beyond question. The second largest beneficiary is the East Cheshire Branch of the NSPCC.
Realisation of funds from this site would strengthen both these charities, to the benefit of the
population in the area served by Cheshire East Council. The land on the site is of relatively low grade
agricultural quality, and currently let out on a yearly basis at a low rent which is of little benefit to
the charities, once insurance and maintenance have been accounted for. A possible access point to
the site is from Lark Hall Road, across a small piece of land which we believe to be owned by
Cheshire East Council. Accordingly, if the site were developed, the local authority could benefit
financially.
Affordable/social housing is desperately needed but we have enough large commuter homes out
Page 64
pricing young people from the market. Homes for special needs urgently required/supported
housing for our ever ageing population but with the resources to maintain people in them.
Again - easy to agree with... but - is it desirable / realistic that the town really needs c.200 new
houses every year for the next 18 years? Is the success of the town dependent on population growth
of this magnitude? Perhaps not.... it needs to avoid growing into an homogenous large town.
Again, the Objective makes perfect sense, and I support it, especially the desire to create more living
space in the Town centre, as this will feed Objective 2. The big challenge will be to choose where to
put any additional housing, so that the other "selling points" of the Town remain uncompromised.
Agree on the pressures on the area's housing, although I hope due thought and consideration is
given for the locations.
Agree with objectives but not with strategy (valid for most objectives) What will be the profile of the
population - and lifestyle - in 20 - 50 years? Are 3500 new homes really needed? On new sites?
Currently there's much refurb opportunity. If new built, higher density is more sustainable than
spacious!
Agree with point one, not so much with point 2. Do we need more residents? Why?
Agree with provision of more housing in Town centre using brown field sites and redundant retail
space Disagree with significant erosion of Green Belt
Agree with using Brownfield sites for new homes. However, Green Belt areas should not be used for
these developments.
Agree with the Objective but the strategy is flawed. The need for housing is at the new owner, first
time buyer end of market. Developing new edge of town sites will not encourage town centre
redevelopment - development along Mill Lane etc could provide better opportunities
All the allocations itemised in the Strategy Consultation document point to areas on the rim of
Macclesfield's existing conurbation. None propose areas either on Brownfield land or through the
re-use of existing buildings within the town. This seems to be a document wholly in pursuit of
sanctioning the sell off and development of Greenbelt land for the benefit of developers and their
Council partners. If the document had itemised some areas within the town's existing boundary I
would be less sceptical about such agendas, but as it stands there is little hope that what is
developed will be the right development for anything other than the balance sheet.
All types of housing are needed
Although I realise that there is a housing need, I object to use of the green belt. Particularly on the
east side, developments E and to a certain extent F, would directly remove residents' easy foot
access to countryside walking and activities, and the Peak District national park.
Although more housing may be required in Macclesfield we strongly disagree to the use of site E for
additional housing. The area between Buxton Road and Hurdsfield Road provides a much needed
"Green Lung" for walkers, children with families, horse riders and cyclists. This area on the edge of
the Peak District National park, is on the hilly side of Macclesfield, and in part as a result, is a rare
area of natural beauty yet so close to the heart of the town. It includes many mature trees and
hedgerows, Canal sidewalks, Swans Pool and local (historic) reservoirs all of which bring bird life,
migratory birds and other wildlife into almost the heart of our lovely town. Herons, Canada Geese,
Swans, Owls etc etc. There is also a well used network of non-vehicular paths and tracks in this area
which give access to this pocket of countryside. All of the above would be at risk if the area were
transformed for housing. The potential road network changes around Higher Fence Road, and
particularly around Puss Bank Primary School could also be problematic, adding further traffic to an
area which suffers congestion at peak periods. In summary the "loss" of this area to new housing,
would not only be a loss to immediate locals but to the town as a whole. Some of the other potential
housing site options listed in the plan would, we believe, have much less negative impact in terms of
environment, recreation, and traffic, and would provide greater numbers of new residences.
Any housing should be built using already derelict sites. There are plenty of areas suitable for
redevelopment without encroaching on our Green Belt land. Any housing should also be in keeping
Page 65
with the area - not like the monstrosity at the bottom of Windmill Street/Knights Street which
resembles a prison, or the new development at the side of our beautiful canal with grey windows
and metal roof. There are sites at the side of the canal on Buxton Road which would make beautiful
housing but must be built in keeping with the rest of the area. The land between Fence Avenue and
Larkhall is some of the most beautiful countryside and to build on it would be destroying it. Also
when you think of access to any development, it will either have to come along Higher Fence Road
and over a narrow canal bridge, or from the Buxton Road end, past an infant and junior school which
is difficult to access already. OUR GREEN BELT MUST NOT BE TOUCHED.
Any use of the greenbelt land in and around Macclesfield could have a detrimental effect on
Macclesfield's unique character. Macclesfield is a great place to live because of the visible landscape
setting. Too many developments that erode this visibility will make people less keen to visit and also
live here.
Are existing houses going to be updated to a higher standard? statements are contradictory
Area C is entirely unsuitable for development. Access is poor. Local schools are full. it would be
better to develop either areas I or J to the south between London Road ,Congleton Road and
Chelford Road. in these areas the primary schools are not full - Gawsworth, Ash Grove, Ivy Bank and
Broken Cross and the Macclesfield Academy which had so much money wasted on it might
eventually become viable. Building houses in these areas might fill these schools.
Area C on Green Belt. Also cannot be sustained with present facilities.
Area E is Green Belt
Develop the old, disused, crumbling mills and office blocks!
There is no reason to build huge number of houses
As Macclesfield is an old silk town with many unused old/falling down buildings, why could there
areas not be used to increase the housing stock. Moving into the Green Belt of the town will only
depreciate the town's value as a whole. We live near to one of the proposed developments, which
will not directly affect our comfort of living. However Higher Fence Road becomes a wonderful
country lane as you cross between Hurdsfield and Buxton Roads. Many, many people walk its length
in a week and it is a favourite part of our community, including swans pool, which has been around
and thought so much of since I was a girl many years ago. If you build 240 houses near it, the
ambience will be destroyed. Surely this is an area which should be kept for future children in your
plan as they are the ones who love to come to the pool to see all the birdlife around.
As many houses as possible should be built within the current town area so that encroachment into
the green belt is kept to a minimum. Good quality homes for all are a laudable objective, but they
must be in suitable locations.
As mentioned, building on brownfield sites should be priority to preserve green belt and retain
Macclesfield as a country town on the edge of the Peak District and not sprawling out in all
directions.
Building on the local fields and greenbelt will NOT improve the prosperity or nature of the town. One
of the reasons people live in Macclesfield is because of the countryside
As previous look at redeveloping the brown site by Tesco and sorting out the run down houses and
buildings all over town and this should in turn will provide more affordable housing without having
to spend funds on redeveloping roads and access. Let alone destroy the green belt which myself
included was the main reason for choosing Macclesfield as a place to live.
Avoid all sites in the green belt build on brown field sites.
Believe the council needs to focus on securing substantial and sustainable employment for the
current population of Macclesfield before embarking on yet another project of house building. The
increase in houses over the past ten - twenty years (most of which one might refer to as toy town
housing estates of poor quality which has quickly aged and deteriorated in many cases, cramped
together and offering very little individual space) has not brought with it any improved employment
opportunities locally, nor has there been any noticeable improvements in infrastructure to support
Page 66
more housing. Everyday sees a migration of local dwellers commuting to their place of work outside
of the locality, therefore, without secured local employment more housing will not assuage this
problem, but effectively make it worse. To encroach on green belt land for the sake of a cheap
option to improve the road infrastructure, whilst filling the pockets of developers who have no local
responsibility or commitment, I do not believe to be the answer.
Build on Brown field land, convert existing buildings, do not build on Green belt it is not necessary!
Build on brown sites first e.g. bottom of field bank road/ Keep the Green belt green.
Build on brownfield sites use all available. As close as possible to town centre to encourage use of
town centre. Housing too far out will not support Macclesfield town centre but travel elsewhere and
increase reliance on cars.
Building on Green Belt land is not acceptable for a town such as Macclesfield.
Building on green belt. Unimaginative solution
Building on site C will be a disaster & destroy the character of Upton /Prestbury road - the fields are
beautiful countryside loved by the local community, plus it bring the edge of the town too close to
Prestbury. No more housing should be build round Macclesfield, it will destroy the character of the
town
But . . . Add where appropriate in Paragraph, Will seek to see where the Town needs to renew built
areas which are not fit for purpose whilst retaining any historical character but also to enhance it. To
build denser and where appropriate higher rise Buildings as Chester City have done which provides
more dwellings but with less land loss.
But not at the expense of the green belt - unused mills and 2nd homes might provide an answer
But not on Green Belt land
But not with any loss of Green Belt east of Fence Avenue in Macclesfield
By promoting the alternative use of some older period buildings for residential would maintain the
character of the town whilst increasing the number of people living in the town centre. Any new
development must be sympathetic to the existing architecture and not be permitted solely for the
profit of the developer.
Certain of the sites suggested for new housing developments are on areas of particular
environmental importance within the Greenbelt. It is unacceptable for these areas to be developed.
Areas of particular concern seem to me to be C, I and J - these should not be developed.
Chapter 6 figures showing population is highly dubious. Figures from one part do not agree with the
next. If you are using figures get them right!
Definition of "adequate parking provision" needs to be reviewed - we don't need more estates like
Jasmine park where no consideration was made to parking, resulting in a rabbit warren of roads
lined with parked cars - not a safe environment for children to grow up in.
Delivery of 3500 homes is far too high; it means an increase in the town population of probably
14000+ (27%+). An increase in the WHOLE of Cheshire East by about 2030 is estimated to be approx
16600! The total number of dwellings estimated to be possible - as given on pages 17 and 18 of the
strategy document is 7150, which could mean an increase in the town's population of 28000 (over
50%)!! This is clearly ridiculous.
Develop brown field sites in Town Centre first and recognise the intrinsic value of rural areas
Disagree to Site E. DO NOT build on this site, it would be a crime against nature.
Disagree with site c being used for new housing
Do not agree with building on conservation or Green Belt sites
Do not agree with building on Green Belt or Conservation sites
Do not agree with the building on conservation or Green belt sites
Do people really want to live in the town centre ? I would prefer that all existing sites are used for
housing (including taking a more sensible approach to developing brownfield sites - people would
generally prefer old factories etc to be used for housing than left derelict for years).
Do we need 3,500 homes? Nothing in the document justifies it. The only explanation to justify the
Page 67
building of 3,500 houses can only be the financial interest of a few, not the benefit of a whole
community. Sorry! The world's population might be on the rise but also the amount of horrible
buildings scattered in Macclesfield which look like a scar in a historic red brick town. What are you
going to do with them? These should be knocked down and built on with sympathetic architectural
taste (if the architect is a decent one). That would save some of the GREEN BELT you are trying to
wipe out!!!!!!
Do we really NEED this much housing?
Do we really need more homes? Where is the evidence for this?
East Cheshire council should NOT be building on the green belt. It took almost 2 years to sell my
house - why do we need new houses when current ones can lie empty?
Efforts should be made to avoid encroaching on Green Belt land
Extreme caution
brownfield sites.
Far too much green belt being taken away. We do not want more concrete
Firstly I would question whether we NEED 3500 new homes. Do we NEED or even WANT to increase
the population of our town? The charm of the town I grew up in, the town I have come back to raise
my family, is that it is a small town that has everything you need. Increasing the population will
change the characteristics of the town and the surrounding areas. My deeper concern is that
although your Strategy says that new housing would be 'appropriate to the local character', which
any sane person would applaud, some of the locations for the houses (which I question whether we
need), and in particular Site C, are deeply inappropriate and would have a permanent and
devastating effect on the landscape, wildlife, and the people who live next to and commute past this
beautiful patch of green belt. In the plan you say that there is a shortage in housing, but the
numbers simply do not add up. Please explain to the people of Macclesfield, WHY 3500 houses are
needed. If, and only if, these houses need to be added to the town, then it should be done carefully
and considered, and consulting the people of Macclesfield in a much more constructive way than
this proposal seems to have been pushed through. If, and only if, we do need to build this number of
houses in our small and beautiful town, then it makes more sense to put them into one, single,
carefully planned development. This number of houses is staggering, and will change the
characteristics of the town - squeezing in 300 here, and 360 there, and another 600 somewhere else
will have a highly negative effect on each of these locations, the people who already live around
them, the traffic, schools, shops and hospitals. 3500 new houses, in one location, will allow for all
the necessary infrastructure with a lesser impact on the rest of the town. Please outline WHY we
need 3500 houses, and then ask the people of Macclesfield, IF they want 3500 houses. Only then
should we be talking about how and where these developments might take place.
'For everyone to live...' Who is everyone? Immigrants to Britain? Potential demand is infinite.
Genuine local needs can be exaggerated though it could well be that more sheltered old people's
housing is needed.
Get the empty houses filled first, and use only brown field sites not greenbelt.
Green Belt is one of the towns key attributes and developing in it goes against the goal of retaining
the town's character
Green belt land should be kept as it is.
Green belt must be preserved.
Green belt should not be considered for development for housing
Green belt should only be built on as a last resort. The opportunity for using redundant / under-used
commercial buildings as housing should be pursued.
Greenbelt land should not be built on, I have a young family and we love the area we live in the last
thing we want is the fields to be full of houses. I have lived in the Henbury/Greenside area all my life
Page 68
and would be devastated for it to be changed.
Hands off the "Green Belt" Build on "Brown Fill" sites
Hard to answer this! I agree with the objectives but feel that the strategy is at odds with these
objectives. In particular, the plan states as an objective "To increase the number of people living in
the town centre" but all the proposed areas for development are some considerable distance from
the town centre.
Have major concerns about building on Green Belt sites not using brown field sites available
Have we got the infrastructure to cope with thousands of more people and cars?
Having the town surrounded by generic housing estates is the worst option and negates the
sustainability objective due to the amount of traffic generated and the lack of public transport. First
option has got to be building within the town, conversion of existing buildings, investigating empty
properties and encouraging alternatives such as upper floors of shops. Give economic circumstances
and the number of homes for sale , the future of privately owned homes is not that clear - for young
people provision of affordable rented homes may be a better option. If new housing is to be built ,
developers should not just take the most profitable option of bulldozing natural features to get a flat
site to throw up generic houses - any development must blend with natural features and use local
styles and materials ( the small development built some years ago on the site of a barn next to the
flowerpot on Congleton road is a good example, the estate on the opposite side of the road is a poor
one.
town centre.
Houses for first time buyers and young families
Housing development on greenbelt land which protects the environment and enjoyment of the
countryside and recreational pursuits of the public is not acceptable.
Housing development should, be restricted to Brownfield sites only and not on Green Belt which
should continue to be protected. Proposed site for Tesco is brownfield, they already have 3 stores.
Housing more appropriate.
Housing should be more carefully considered where it is built because of potential loss of beautiful
countryside and pressure on roads for increased traffic, access.
Housing should only be provided on that land already used as housing and redeveloped or which has
already got permission for change of use to housing. There is no need to move on to green belt land.
I accept that new housing is generally best located within and adjacent to existing Towns but I have
concerns about the stated aim of providing 3500 new dwellings in Macclesfield. I question the logic
of this number when the population is only expected to increase from 363000 to 379000 a 5%
increase especially with the current poor economic climate and the likely poor economic forecast for
both the medium and long term. I believe this point needs to be explained more clearly and the
assumptions upon which it is based need to stated.
I agree about the need for SPACIOUS, QUALITY developments. But why is there a need for more
people to live in the town centre? Are residential properties vacant? I have just moved out of the
area very near the town centre (near B&Q) - I didn't much like it in these tiny terraced houses on
bumpy, parked-up streets without a single tree and tiny gardens. I personally would wish for the
some of the worst rows of Victorian town terraced houses to be knocked down and replaced with
more spacious and green developments, but with a traditional appeal. As far as the quality of the
building materials is concerned: I agree. For example, the relatively new Victoria Park estate is great
in design, but the brick can't be very good, since many of the walls surrounding the gardens are
crumbling already.
I agree that new housing will be needed, more houses means more cars and considering the housing
that is also being considered in Poynton, Woodford and Wilmslow it is imperative that the A523
SEMMMS improvements are implemented.
I agree that there should be more housing provision in Macclesfield, however, to site it in Green Belt
Page 69
is absurd, especially considering a) the Council's own vision places such emphasis on Macclesfield's
surrounding landscape, b) There, as the Macclesfield Express reported, lie many empty homes in the
town already, c) the Council have not considered the use of brownfield sites for developing housing,
d) A huge development of houses on the old Woodford airfield has been given the go-ahead. It is a
flagrant disregard of the Council's own vision to assume that it can juxtapose a desire to
demonstrate the beauty of Macclesfield's surrounding area to visitors and then build 3,500 houses
on it. Furthermore, many of the sites proposed do not fit the Council's own specification. For
example, to build houses on site E with clearly inadequate access for initial construction and for
residents once they live there is at best ill-thought out. To build houses on land that sits above
numerous mine shafts is also ill-thought out.
I agree the objective, but question whether so many homes are required given the reported glut of
unused planning permits being held by developers a few years ago.
I agree with aims to use brown field sites especially in the Town Centre for the provision of new
housing. This housing should be designated for those members of our society with a need and for
Key Workers. I strongly disagree with the building of more cheap, aesthetically limited, monodesigned housing estates on our Green Belt. Macclesfield has enough housing estates and any more
loss of our pockets of green rural countryside will be of detriment to both the local wildlife and the
living environment we leave for future generations. Also to state the obvious, for the record, housing
estates attract young families which require local education, health care, waste management
services and a transport network able to cope with the extra demand. That is additional pressure on
an infrastructure which is already chronically underfunded. I have put disagree because the survey is
too simplistic. You are asking the question for a whole range of measures. Some of which I approve,
some of which, I do not.
I agree with small amounts of this section - All new housing should be sustainable, high standard and
as energy efficient as possible (solar panels (even in Macclesfield!), heat pumps, good insulation etc.
I seriously question the need for 3500 new houses and suspect that the real reason for this number
is to increase council tax income. Even if there IS the need for that many houses I disagree strongly
with 8/10 of the proposed areas for development involving building on the greenbelt, and refuse to
believe that there are not better answers to the issue. I would also stress that the priority for the
council should be the provision of social and sheltered housing, with reuse and refurbishment of
council owned properties to meet today's requirements and NOT "building lots of 4-bed detached as
close to each other as possible with no parking" which is what many developments do to maximise
profit. The Hovis mill is an example of what can be done with existing buildings, the Victoria Park
flats redevelopment a fairly good example of reuse of land. The town has many old mills that could
also be suitable with some imagination. I would also like to see ex industrial land in surrounding
areas (Bollington etc) considered long before building on the greenbelt. The main attraction of living
in Macclesfield to many people was the proximity to the countryside - building on greenbelt will
move the countryside further away and reduce the attractiveness of the town. The local facilities for
any new housing should also be considered with LOCAL shops, not just another Tesco’s.
I agree with the objective, but no mention in the strategy of how the second bullet point will be
achieved. This indicates that there is no specific strategy for the second point, falling at the first
fence! No target means no effort, investment or achievement.
I agree with your objective but not the strategy, because the latter states "3500 homes on NEW
sites". This clearly tells me that you are proposing green belt development which will lead to urban
spread. Where is the commitment to develop "brown field"?-There is a lot of derelict looking space
around the town. You make no reference to this. There is no indication that it is included in your
considerations. Building developers like green fields and should be encouraged to look at other sites.
Your plan to provide "new sites" seems to contradict the stated aim to get more people living in the
town centre. The new sites will be outside the town's current footprint. To remove green belt
protection, particularly to areas E, F, and G, will create urban sprawl and put pressure on the
remaining green belt.. It will detract from the character of the town which you want to preserve. The
Page 70
strategy states that design should be "appropriate to the local character and heritage of the area. As
before I am concerned that there is no clear reference to the "landscape". I would like to see it read
"local character countryside and heritage of the area".
I am concerned about the location of Site C, specifically in relation to: - access via Abbey Road,
currently a quiet road with minimal traffic - pressure on school places in the area
I am not convinced of the need to build 3,500 new homes. Do these figures take into account
planned developments elsewhere in Cheshire East, such as Woodford?
I am not convinced that so many new properties will need to be provided within the period of the
plan.
I am not happy about the phrase "Secure more spacious, high quality residential development with
adequate parking provision" what does this mean? is this 3 bedroom terraces? semis? detached
houses? Houses should all be high quality and a range of options should be considered. I would be
unhappy at the sacrifice of green belt land to build detached houses with provision for more than 2
cars per household An increase in housing would predicate an increased provision of primary and
secondary schools - how would this be provided?
I am opposed to any development on Green Belt Land, especially the area between Hurdsfield Road
& Buxton Road. This is an area of outstanding beauty which benefits many residents of the town
who appreciate its proximity to the town centre. Such areas are rare & irreplaceable.
I am placing objections to the proposal of building 250 houses on site E. Having lived in the Buxton
Rd. area all my life & been able to enjoy growing up & been surrounded by Greenfields & plenty of
wild life, I feel so disappointed to think that the council could even consider building on this land. As
a child I could walk round Barracks Lane and feed the wild fowl on the pond, but now when I walk
my grandchildren round you cannot even see the pond due to the Lakeland estate. If you have your
way Swans pool & the public footpaths from Baileys farm up and round the reservoirs will disappear
in the same way. This area is also a haven for wild life badgers, foxes, rabbits, herons, buzzards,
woodpeckers, owls, geese, frogs, lizards, bats to name but a few. All the public footpaths round here
are used by the local schools Puss Bank and the Kings School for nature walk and cross country
running. This green belt is part of our heritage & what a disaster for our future generations if it
disappears. As you may or may not be aware there are mine shafts on this land dating back to the
coal mining era. You may remember the property built on Roewood that suddenly subsided down a
shaft around 10-20 years ago. The property was demolished & never rebuilt. Are there not enough
Brown Sites in Macc. to turn into housing or even maintain properties in the town centre so they can
be inhabited. You only have to walk round estates in Macc. Greenside and Tytherington to name but
two to see there is plenty of affordable properties to buy or rent, without building any more. We
would like to know where employment is coming from for all these new residents when the main
two employers in Macc AstraZeneca and Macc District General are cutting jobs and making people
redundant. I hope the council can see sense and preserve all our Green Belt round Macc. and save it
for our future generations to enjoy.
I am very concerned that there are proposals to build on green belt in this area, particularly the land
in-between Whirley Road and Chelford Road. This land provides a haven for wildlife and a large
green area for people to walk their dogs and to enjoy the views. We are already seeing a decline in
wildlife in this country, and the building of housing on greenbelt has huge implications for the
environment. What is the point of introducing recycling with all the refuse system and then building
on greenbelt thereby impacting on the environment more than ever.
I believe that the figure of 3500 has not been justified, and we should aim for a lower figure on the
basis that Stockport and Manchester will aim to take more new housing. Strategy should include a
survey of all empty sites in the town centre, or adjoining the town centre, to assess their suitability
for conversion to retail or housing use. Maximum use of space above retail premises should be made
for housing.
I disagree about there being housing development at site E as this would close a small 'lung' of
countryside that extends into the residential area and is valued by all who live and visit the area.
Page 71
I disagree with the draft pan in relation to area E land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road.
There is insufficient roads for increased traffic from housing putting a great risk to children going to
on these roads as would be forced to walk on roadway hence increased risk of accidents.
I do not approve of the use of greenbelt to new housing and would like to see better use of existing
housing stock and brown field sites.
I do not feel that any of the areas highlighted in this section of the plan are appropriate for the full
proposed quote of new-build housing. There are many sites within Macclesfield that currently hold
derelict factories (e.g. London Road and Park Green) and indeed many other areas where the
housing has fallen into disrepair, such as the side of the Co-Op on London Road near the junction of
Lyme Avenue. The Council have powers to deal with such sites under the Town & Country Planning
Act 1990 (section 215) which could at least ensure the owners of this type of land cleared the
dilapidated buildings; this could then further encourage them to sell the sites on for some beneficial
use, such as the building of additional houses. Instead, they are left to fall apart and there are some
real eyesores in close proximity to the town centre - for example, the recent fire at Gradus which
sadly destroyed a fantastic building, but yet the site has been left derelict for well over a year. The
plan states that the Council wish to encourage more people to live in the town centre, yet don't
seem willing to use the powers available to them to ensure that the town centre looks good, or to
encourage the owners of dilapidated town centre sites to bring them back into a sustainable use.
Instead, it seems that the Council have just looked at a map and highlighted the 'gaps' where there is
currently no housing, without looking at sites closer to the town centre that could be used. I live in
close proximity to one of the proposed sites for new housing (site C) and am extremely concerned
that a fantastic piece of countryside is going to be destroyed. I am not overly familiar with all of the
proposed sites and therefore feel I am only able to pass comment on Site C, although I am sure many
residents from the other proposed areas will also respond. On this basis, I have only objected to Site
C on the following page. I note that in several places throughout the plan it mentions that not all the
sites would need to be built on in order to fulfil the proposed quota of required new housing. I am
most certainly not a 'NIMBY' and am fully aware that progress needs to be made, so rather than
filling up one or two sites with the full number of new houses which you suggest, would it not be a
better option to spread the total required number across all of the sites? I feel that this would
reduce the impact on each of the areas mentioned. I would be concerned that proposed number of
dwellings on Site C would have a major impact on a number of local amenities. As myself and my
partner are intending to start a family, I would be concerned about the additional pressure that 300+
houses would put on our local primary school: are the Council going to put additional funding into
the school to allow them to expand, or will it become another headline about a lack of school places
with children being turned away? I would also be concerned about the additional traffic pressures
which such a large number of houses would place on both Prestbury Road and Abbey Road, as
imagine that both will be used to provide access to Site C. The Bollinbrook estate (I believe it is also
known as the Larch Vale estate?) is a great community currently housing a large number of families
with young children. I already have concerns about vehicles speeding along Abbey Road, and
opening up the dead-end of the road to provide access to any additional housing at the rear of
Wetherall Road would, I feel, only increase the risk of road traffic accidents. Similarly, the possible
access from Prestbury Road would also increase risk of accidents unless a number of practical
alterations were made to the road layout at this location. The current access to the land highlighted
for Site C is on an almost blind bend, close to a pedestrian crossing. As stated above, I am not
objecting to housing on this land, but feel serious consideration should be given to the proposed
(and consented) number of dwellings here, taking into consideration the access issues and potential
impact on the local area in terms of educational provision, leisure amenities (the Bollin Valley) and
also the associated building work in terms of its impact on the local community.
I do not know if I believe the growth figures for twenty years time. 3,500 people appears to be quite
a lot, but if new homes need to be built then they need to be built, but they should first be built in
Page 72
pre-existing disused buildings and then on brownfield sites, both of which Macclesfield has a good
number of. I have great problems with the plans for building on the greenbelt!
I do not see any detail on how the forecast for the huge growth and need for more housing has been
made. I think employment, vibrancy and business must come first. The strategy talks about
developing new homes, and yet Macclesfield has a wonderful variation of existing housing stock. I
would want to see more evidence that such a housing need is genuinely required. I feel the housing
strategy has been based on developing land with new build, yet there are a large amount of mills,
pubs, offices, and empty buildings that could be sensitively developed to provide quality housing,
rather than developer new build homes. I want to see a plan for existing empty buildings being
reassigned for living or living/studio/workshop use first. Furthermore, I am outraged that green belt
sites are in the proposal particularly Area E on the map - the area between Buxton Road and
Hurdsfield, and also areas near the canal. There should be no need to build on Greenfield site and
the developers who have already purchased such sites, and work to influence planning need tough
restrictions to protect these areas for the future. As I know the area marked as E, I can say that 240
homes which would equate to 480 cars would not only damage the habits of local wildlife, but also
local residents as there is no suitable road system that could cope with the additional pressures. One
of the "For statements" in the strategy suggests there is a need in this area for housing for local
employees, however, the major employer AstraZeneca has cut back, and potentially closing the
Macc site, and there are no other significant employers in the immediate area. Furthermore, there is
an inherent danger of creating new housing which is used by commuters, so any development of
housing aimed at local works would require a covenant restriction to ensure it is used by local
people producing and contributing to the local economy. Traditional farm land, ponds, canals, lakes
should never be used for modern housing development. I do agree that an increased need for
suitable housing for an ever increasing older population is needed, and this needs strong
consideration with transport and town access to protect independence for the elderly.
I do not see the need for 3500 extra houses in Macclesfield, this is likely to create a dormitory
town/suburbs. Whilst I understand that an increase in housing is required if the UK population is to
increase and the UK is only a small island and therefore the houses have to go somewhere, 3500
extra houses, housing an additional 7000 people seems a disproportionate increase for a town the
size of Macclesfield. Similarly a 24 % increase in houses in East Cheshire for a ~ 10 % increase in
population seems disproportionate.
I do not think we should necessarily be looking to grow the population by additional housing. Agree
with making housing sustainable, mixed & attractive for all living in Macclesfield.
I don't think we need to be building more new homes, especially in rural areas, when the housing
market is clearly struggling with many unsold houses on the market and lots of empty rental
properties. Amend council tax exemptions/reductions to bring the empty homes back into use and
stop the need for new 'out of character' housing in rural areas.
I find it hard to believe that there will really be such an increase in households (and therefore
demand for housing) in Macclesfield, compared to the expected increase in actual population. I also
doubt that many of the new homes built really will be 'affordable'.
I have great concerns regarding the local wildlife seen from my house backing onto that land,
including kingfishers, herons, ducks and other birds that may be disturbed. I am also greatly
concerned about the effect that building 240 houses would have in terms of the light in my house
and the levels of noise and increase to traffic, in an area that is already exceptionally busy due to the
local schools.
I have no idea whether or why 3,500 new homes are required. If AstraZeneca continues its decline,
then I suspect that that may not be the case.
I have not seen the evidence of housing needs so cannot comment on the strategy.
I have serious concerns about several of the sites selected and the burden development of those
sites will place on the infrastructure in the immediate vicinity
I object strongly to building on Cheshire's greenbelt areas.
Page 73
I object strongly to the proposal to allow development on Green Belt land, particularly on Site E, for
the following reasons: - 1.Any development on the Green Belt involves a significant loss of amenity
for the residents of the town, and incidentally diminishes the tourism potential of the area. 2. As
stated above, I dispute the assumption that Macclesfield requires 3500 new houses; the real number
of houses required can be accommodated on "brownfield" sites or other undeveloped land, without
encroaching on the Green Belt. The only reason developers want to build on the Green Belt is
because it is cheaper than using other undeveloped land inside the belt, which, in the main, would
benefit the area if it were redeveloped.
I object to any further development in region E - Land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road.
This area is not only currently Green Belt land, but is also widely regarded (and used) by a wide
variety of the local public as an amenity
I oppose such extensive use of Greenfield sites
I oppose the building of new housing on any green belt land in and around Macclesfield.
I recently moved to a new development just outside the town centre. I don't believe that sufficient
provision for car parking has been made for this development so I think that future developments
should have more.
go ahead on the hillside to the East of Swanspool then the natural drainage to the pool would be
over the coming years. Swanspool is an easily accessible water source that our local Fire brigade can
to put them out? Local politician’s heads might roll? In conclusion, again based on local knowledge,
hillside views over our town, the delights of our industrial heritage and Swanspool, is a not just a
current local politicians.
I remain unconvinced of the need for additional housing - certainly of the scale of 3,500 homes. The
lack of significant development work over the last five years - since the major development of
Victoria Road and Tytherington - also suggests that the construction industry does not see this as
viable, since there is already land available within Macclesfield which has been granted planning
permission. The strategy talks of ensuring that any new development will have the required
infrastructure in place lacks evidence of commitment - I reference the Belong facility on Kennedy
Ave. While a worthwhile improvement to what was provided before, the development was
insufficiently considered in terms of its impact on traffic and parking on Kennedy Avenue. So, I'm
seriously concerned that any development will not be properly supported with investments in road
capacity and traffic management.
I see from your figures that the council has 16% ( 10952 Cheshire east people on waiting list
compared to 1749 in Macclesfield) of the social housing needs in Cheshire East but wants to build
25% (1243 homes in Cheshire east year on year compared to 318 homes in Macclesfield year on
Page 74
year) of the social houses. Why? The house prices in this area are some of the most reasonable
throughout the Cheshire east area. House prices start relatively cheap in the area at £47,500 for a
one bedroom house, and £50,000 for a two bedroom property. There are also shared ownership
schemes available starting at £27,500 for a flat. And within 1/4 mile of the town centre there are 895
houses for sale. (RIght move 30/9/2012).
I should prefer houses to be built in the town centre, perhaps replacing some of the empty shops or
on the site of empty mills before giving consideration to other areas. This could benefit the growing
elderly population of the town. Regarding housing elsewhere, I think it is preferable to build houses
where there is more countryside nearby, to avoid congestion.
I strongly disagree with plans for site E, this area of Macclesfield is a rural location, close to the
hills/peak district. Additional housing in this area would severely compromise this position.
and is incompatible with the objective to enhance it.
Buxton Road - this has always been a small oasis close to town enjoyed by all of the local community.
The walk way trough Swans Pool, Barracks Lane and Higher Fence Road is a unique environment in
attending to object to the proposed plans
I strongly object to this proposal - Deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new sites by 2030,
including sites that already have planning permission. There are no reliable figures regarding housing
needs for 2030. Provide a mix of housing types and tenures across the town, including affordable
and elderly persons housing, to meet current and future needs of the town. Ensure that new housing
development is sustainable, designed to a high standard and is appropriate to the local character
and heritage of the area with the required infrastructure in place. Secure more spacious, high quality
residential development with adequate parking provision. I have concerns that there is insufficient
support for green solutions and parking should not be a priority but investment in public transport.
I support fringe or town housing development where many people would prefer to live rather than
the centre
I think there is not enough houses by a long way in Macclesfield and the numbers mentioned in the
strategy will not go far enough to satisfy the demand, even if they were all built. Please allow the
next generation the affordability of housing that we were granted.
I understand the need for more housing but there are significant opportunities being missed by not
looking more at the unused, derelict buildings and run down areas around town, especially nearer
the centre. You have a much better chance of achieving the vision for the town centre by improving
the housing areas immediately adjacent to the centre. I am constantly disappointed by the amount
of run down areas and derelict building near the centre of town. The use of Greenfield areas should
be a last resort once all the derelict/run down areas, already within the town, have been exhausted.
The highest consideration should also be given to putting affordable housing in the most suitable
locations within the town. The standards of certain housing areas should preserved with the right
level of housing commensurate with the current sub-community and their sensibilities. Greenfield
areas that are current used extensively by the local community for leisure should not be upon. For
example, the area around swan's pool and the reservoir are beautiful, important for wildlife and
highly utilised by the local people and schools. These areas make local people feel valued and are
extremely important for wellbeing.
I wholeheartedly disagree with any building on green belt land - it would be a terrible decision. I live
on Buxton Road - the proposed development in that area is quite vague, but any development would
ruin the appeal of a beautiful area - a very respected and sought-after part of Macclesfield. Any
Page 75
more housing would surely put tremendous pressure on Puss Bank School. Also we have the
beautiful area around Swans Pool - any increase in housing would surely affect this very special place
of beauty - not to mention the wild life issues. I do not understand why there is a need to increase
the population in the town. At some point surely we have to hang up the 'full' sign.
I would like to see more bungalows available for older people who can no longer manage stairs.
I would question the need for so many more houses. Is the forecasted population expansion really
accurate?
I would welcome the development of derelict buildings for housing rather than losing the green belt.
There are many old garages, disused commercial premises which are empty and are eye sores for
communities, attracting graffiti and rubbish. There are many empty homes throughout Macclesfield
which could and should be lived in.
I, like others who have responded to this consultation, am sceptical of the need for 3500 homes by
2030. Where exactly do these projections come from? I live in a house overlooking the green belt
(site C) and value this aspect. Clearly all of the residents of Macclesfield who live opposite or close to
the green belt areas proposed for development value their piece of green belt as much as I do. It is
hard to say that one piece of green belt should have greater protection than another, so we all want
all brownfield sites to be exhausted before any green belt is considered for development. However it
appears inevitable that at some point in the future green belt will need to be consumed if the future
need for housing projected by the council turns out to be true. I would agree with another
respondent that star shaped towns are preferable to circular ones. In this way more people can
enjoy an open aspect onto some green countryside. Alternatively a series of concentric circles with
brown areas interleaved with green would be better than just filling in all the green areas as you
move out of the town centre. Has any consideration been given to growing the size of surrounding
villages with smaller, more sympathetic, developments than the huge estates been given? When
construction does occur, the environmental impact must be kept to a minimum. All houses should
be carbon neutral. We do not want any more ' Jones style' Lego land estates. We want innovatively
styled houses for the 21st Century that are built from sustainable sources of building materials.
railway station to the town centre - it is in/near the town centre - just put up some decent signs!
If an allowance of 100 houses per annum is made for small windfall sites being developed then by
2030 at 100 houses x18 yrs=1800 houses, then it would only be necessary to allocate land for 500
houses. Allocating land for 2300 houses will be a gross over provision and ignores the reality that
sites for housing will come forward in the area.
If housing is required in Macclesfield where is the stable industry to support their finances?
If Macclesfield is to capitalise on its tourism, then care must be taken as to where and how houses
are built. Building in the countryside where no buildings exist should really not be an option and
development of derelict buildings in the town given top priority
If one looks at housing for sale in the local paper there is no shortage of homes, why build more
when there is not a need
If the strategy is to revitalise the town centre why are we building in the greenbelt around the edges.
Or is the strategy just to build the target number of houses?
If there is a need for housing we should be looking at brownfield sites first, there are plenty of areas
to be developed before we start building on green belt. The countryside around us is the one plus
point of this area and it needs protecting.
If there is to be an increase in the amount of housing in Macclesfield would want to see an
improvement in the road systems and conditions of the roads at the same time.
Improve the existing buildings - many residential ones are falling into a dilapidated state. In terms of
sustainability, offering grants or low cost loans to improve existing buildings would raise the quality
Page 76
of the housing stock and encourage people to take pride in their streets. Develop brownfield sites
and redevelop the empty buildings including mills and pubs. It is scandalous the number of beautiful
old mill buildings that burn down or are shells with broken windows - this creates a poor impression
of the town. The green belt land HAS to be safeguarded - once we start building on it, the
momentum will continue and it will be eaten away. The countryside must be safeguarded - again,
this is a key factor many people chose to live in Macc rather than a city like Manchester. All town
centre re/development should take place in the local style - Macc has unique architecture, maximise
this, make it different to other towns. Where building takes place, incorporate green spaces and
adequate parking - most new developments are littered with cars parked on the roads, making it
quite unsafe for pedestrians.
Improve the quality of life in Macclesfield and increase employment opportunities, and you will
attract people to the town.
In particular strategies to strongly encourage more use of property over shops in the Town Centre
should be included, possibly by differential business rates.
In respect of area I we have been through this before up to a full enquiry. It was all dismissed by the
govt inspector. This includes the proposed south west link road. I have a strong sense of déjà-vu.
Were all the objections made then a waste of time. It appears so. My objections are the destruction
of possibly the best area of existing green belt around Macc. It is used by many people daily for
walks and contains many now rare ponds
Incentivise the use of low carbon transport options through appropriate infrastructure on new
homes, and provided to support new homes.
Instead of securing 'More Spacious development' shouldn't the existing developments be made
suitably sized? Why cram 5 dwellings with limited parking in a space actually suitable for 3 with
proper provisions?
Invest in the current housing stock. I strongly disagree to you building new houses on green belt
land.
Is there a shortage of housing? There does not appear to be and certainly it appears any shortfall
could be built on areas which have lay destitute for years - e.g. the old TA site which you allowed to
renew their application - they should be made to build on it or have to resell rather than even
consider building on green field sites. In addition all the young families are struggling to get into the
schools of their choice e.g. Whirley with Jasmine Park development how on earth could the families
on Greenside get in if you allow more building at Henbury.
It is agreed that there is a need to provide a mix of housing to meet the current and future
aspirations of the town. In order to do this reference to 'deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new
sites by 2030, including sites that already have planning permission' is not supported. 3,500 should
be a minimum target, and the Strategy should be clear on this point to avoid any confusion. The
NPPF is clear that sustainable growth is key to boost the economy, and a positive approach should
be taken by local authorities. Reference to the inclusion of sites that already have planning
permission should be deleted. It is possible that sites with planning permission may not come
forward, but also the Council will be preparing an Annual Monitoring Report to measure delivery
against targets, and this is a sufficient mechanism to assess progress. The strategy need not be so
prescriptive to reference sites with planning permission within the 3,500 figure. Support is given to
the rest of the objective and strategy, but consideration should be given to including in the strategy
an additional bullet point highlighting the need to prioritise the use of land within the existing
settlement boundary, rather than the release of land from the Green Belt.
It is good to use suitable brown sites for housing but I strongly disagree with spoiling the town by
using green belt sites. It will spoil the town which at present maintains its rural appeal.
It is imperative we preserve the green belt, there are many brown field sited as yet as undeveloped
plus many empty properties both in the town centre and its surrounds which should be fully utilised
before decimation of the green belt takes place destroying the habitat of many birds, animals and
insects - many of whom may be common at present but will rapidly cease to exist.
Page 77
It is obviously on emotive subject. I would strongly oppose low density housing for the well off on
green belt land. Affordable housing is needed. There are many brownfield sites which should be
considered first. Certainly there are empty commercial buildings e.g. Buxton Rd/Union Rd junction &
Gunco Lane area. I would not like to see the area between Buxton Road and Hurdsfield Road
developed. Tytherington Business Park area looks promising & would make the bus service more
viable. Areas such as off London Road should have plenty of green space incorporated. Careful
design is needed. New housing must be designed to be served by bus, and walking/cycling must be
made easy.
It is questionable whether it is necessary or desirable to aim for as many as 3,500 new homes.
It should not be about just numbers. The quality and type of housing is critical, especially with our
ageing population and need to retain younger people. Tenure is also as important as energy
efficiency and proximity to facilities. We need a good mix of private rented, owner-occupied, and
social housing if the town is to succeed.
It's green belt land and feel it would damage the environment and totally detract from the beauty of
the local area. It's a great place to walk around the lake and reservoirs. The Lark Hall area already
has a lot of houses within this locale and I cannot see the justification for adding yet more housing to
such a pretty, peaceful area. More housing would increase traffic congestion in the area.
Keep green wedge from the canal at Hurdsfield/Buxton Road free of extra housing; use brown sites
first. Site I would seem most suitable for housing and economic development.
Keep Macclesfield a small town in Green Belt land
Laudable but the location of two superstores outside the centre as with the leisure centre has been
a mistake
Leave the Green Belt alone - use up the 800 empty houses first and brown field sites.
Living near Site C the destruction of beautiful nature site and wild life habitat is not justified for this
site. It will make Macclesfield less attractive.
Living on Whirley road, the proposed new builds, would impact the area. New houses are still being
built at Jasmine Park. A lot remain unsold.
Looking at the options available to increase the number of houses in Macclesfield it is inevitable that
Green Belt Land will have to be used to achieve the number of properties required.
Looks to me like too many houses on Greenfield sites.
Loss of green space and a lot more traffic congestion.
Macclesfield (and its surrounding villages) must not become a dormitory town as this does not help
the town community thus the number of homes required should only be considered for those
working locally.
Macclesfield has been promoted by the Council in the recent past in documents such as "Unleashing
the Potential" as being part of the North West most productive business and entrepreneurial area. In
order to support this it would be necessary to ensure that housing and other relevant infrastructure
is sufficiently catered for and it would seem that the proposal for 3,500 houses is below that which
one would normally expect for Macclesfield, the second largest town in Cheshire East which has 15%
of its population. A more realistic figure would be in the range 4,500-5,500 in order to ensure that
the town caters for its current and future needs. In addition population projections show a
significant increase and this is likely to be reflected in household projections due to be released
towards the end of 2012. The town must, therefore, meet its locally generated needs and as
previously forecasted with well over 5,000 new households forming by 2030 this would equate to a
requirement higher than the 3,500 now proposed.
Macclesfield needs more new housing for the elderly
Many areas that are designated 'Green Belt' just happen to have grass on them - not because they
contribute to the real objectives of green belt. It is right to challenge these and release land for
development. However. Why not make use of unwanted retail/office buildings for residential
redevelopment and make aggressive use of brown field sites - why do we still have refuse trucks
Page 78
parked in the yard opposite the entrance to Tesco??
Mixed economy housing with a realistic price tag
More affordable housing needed to buy and to rent. I am not sure why Macclesfield will need 3.500
new homes by 2030- with an ageing population I can appreciate the need for smaller properties
located in and near the town entre but the 'spacious high quality residential development' - that
suggests that these properties will be out of town in the Green Belt.
More housing in town centre important
More housing is needed. High priority must be given to reusing derelict and brownfield sites, in
order to minimise encroachment on greenbelt.
More people living in the town centre is a positive move; however they will add nothing to the
economy unless the development is matched to better facilities including shops, restaurants, a
theatre and a cinema
MUST ensure adequate employment for the additional residents. Two really key points in the
strategy must be emphasised; - high quality and SPACIOUS housing and not houses crammed in on
estates with no footpaths. - Adequate PARKING PROVISION. Misguided attempts to encourage
residents to have fewer cars have led recently to the building of family homes with only one off road
parking space. This is absolutely ridiculous. These days most families have 2 vehicles. This approach
simply leads to cars being parked along estate roads, blocking the roadway. You only need to drive
through one of these new estates during the evening when most people have returned from work to
see for yourself this situation. I can't emphasise enough that providing one parking space does not
make a family only have one car.
My concern is that local people are potentially going to be out priced in the town, so it is key that
affordable housing is actually affordable, as Macc is more and more likely to become a commuter
town with Man Uni graduates settling here. Whilst this is great for the town, local young people run
the risk of being forced to look elsewhere for housing.
My main concern with the plans for more housing is the removal of the stunning green belt land that
we have left within Macclesfield and which makes Macclesfield the town it is. If we remove the
greenbelt areas of Macclesfield you are killing Macclesfield itself. One of the main reasons people
like to live in Macclesfield is they like to feel removed from busy built up towns and cities, and like to
feel the openness of Macclesfield and the natural beauty of the surrounding countryside. I feel if this
slowly starts to be removed from us we will slowly start to lose the people who love this aspect of
the town and completely ruin one lovely town. As a town can you not work on what we already have
by improving derelict unsightly parts of the town and brown field parts. These are the areas that
need improving (knocking down and re-building) and leaving the natural beautiful areas alone that
we have LEFT in and around Macclesfield. By doing this you will be achieving 2 jobs at once,
improving the unsightly parts and leaving the natural beauty parts alone and making Macclesfield a
much more desirable area. I also do not agree with putting affordable housing in areas which already
have high standards of living i.e. expensive houses as this is going to bring more issues and problems
to the town. I cannot understand the thinking of this all. I have lived in Macclesfield all my life and
I’m very fond and have a strong sense of love to the town. I have known 3 generations of my family
which have all lived in Macclesfield and would love for my kids to stay in Macclesfield and have the
upbringing and love of the town I have had. But if the character and desirability of the town is lost I
would want my kids to find a new nest. This is the one strong thing Macclesfield has, many
generations of families have stayed due to the love and feel of the town.
Natural England supports the aim within Objective 3 to ensure all new housing development is
sustainable, although more details about how sustainability is defined is required. It should cover
such issues as location of development, SUDS, designing for nature, access to public open space
amongst others.
Need to be very carefully where extra housing will be allowed. More town centre hoses and apt.
New houses will impact on local services especially local primary and secondary schools. Nature will
be greatly affected, especially birds, nesting ducks, geese, herons etc. The roads will become busier
Page 79
possibly leading to more traffic accidents.
New housing should be located within reach of the town centre, without the need to use of car.
Therefore we should avoid building on the surrounding Greenfield sites.
No case for 3000 houses has been made
No clear explanation has been given as to where the figure of 3,500 houses has come from. It is not
appropriate to plan for individual towns in isolation from others. There needs to be an overall
strategy for Cheshire East, so that the interrelationship between the towns can be understood, as
well as the relationship with surrounding areas e.g. Greater Manchester, the Potteries, and the Peak
District. In terms of the numbers of houses which could be accommodated in the built up area of
Macclesfield, a figure of 1,200 has been suggested. This figure is challenged as it does not include
land which has been allocated for employment purposes for 20 years plus but is still undeveloped,
and could be reallocated, in part to housing e.g. South Macclesfield Development Area could
accommodate nearly 1,000 houses, and still leave land for other uses. East Tytherington could
accommodate 2-300 houses. Several large sites have been given planning permission for housing in
the past 3 months e.g. Rieter Scragg, Kay Metzeler, East Tytherington. The suggestion that more land
is required for business use is a myth and not based on facts. There has been plenty of land allocated
for business/ employment use for many years and it has not been developed. Existing employment
uses are being redeveloped for housing. It is therefore unnecessary to suggest sites F & G may be
required for business use. There are several reasons for this lack of demand on traditional sites,
these include the provision being made on sites like Astra Zeneca at Alderley Park, Booths Hall at
Knutsford, Radbrooke Hall at Knutsford etc; the provision in town centres, and an increasing % of
people working from home .
No evidence provided for need 3500 homes
No houses on green belts. That's why we moved here and why you benefit from our taxes.
No justification has been given for the figure of 3500 new homes.
No justification is presented for the requirement for 3500 new homes by 2030. The need for 'new
sites' is also not explained or justified. I disagree because no convincing justification is presented for
these figures.
No mention of accessible housing
No real evidence to support need for 3500 homes and related implications to use green belt are
highly undesirable
Not at the cost of green belt. The roads will take no more traffic. Develop town centre and rail/bus
public transport
Not before all this infrastructure has been done
Not confident in new homes requirement of 3500 because of massive discrepancy with Cheshire
East population projections - first two bullet points of item 6.2
Number on housing waiting list is irrelevant; what matters is how many existing
households/projected households will be looking for housing and how many of those will need some
form of subsidised housing. If the Council was able to do a 24 hour survey of all its housing
applicants, at least 50% would fall off.
Numbers of new homes are grossly excessive
Object to the proposed housing growth figure of 3,500 as it is considered too low, not justified by a
credible and robust evidence base, and does not reflect the historical shortfall in housing delivery
across Macclesfield. The growth requirement is not considered to align with the Councils aspirations
for economic growth, the two go hand in hand. Nor does it reflect the status and role for
Macclesfield as a major town for current and future investment and employment in the Borough.
However the aspiration to provide the opportunity for everyone to live in a good quality home,
providing a mix of housing types and tenures in appropriate locations to meet current and future
housing needs and aspirations of the town.
Objection to site C, land north of Prestbury Rd. This site includes an ancient woodland and borders
Page 80
onto Riverside Park, traffic is appalling each morning around Prestbury road getting either in or out
of town, l feel this will lead to major accident spots and increased traffic. I live bordering onto the
proposed development site and there is a vast array of wildlife that inhabits this area, including
Badgers, Foxes, Pheasants and many wild birds which we all feed all this will be destroyed I feel
unnecessarily.
Objective 3 - Housing - the first objective is vague, though commendable and the second specific and
supported by the Society. The elements of the strategy do conflict in some way - spacious housing
implies lower density whereas affordable housing tends to be of higher density in order to claw back
value for developers which results in lower space standards internally and externally. The overall
provision of 3500 dwellings by 2030 implies about 200 dwellings per year unless there are particular
phasing periods it would be interesting to know if this is close to the current build rate, below or
above it to see whether it is feasible. Another key indicator would be the extent to which schemes
are permitted but do proceed to construction, for whatever reason. The abandonment of the
regional planning strategies makes it difficult to plan for housing growth at a wider than local level
with the result that there could be duplication of provision and wasteful over allocation of land and
planning blight, an example is the proposal for 950 dwellings on the former BAe site at Woodford,
adjacent to Poynton, Wilmslow and Macclesfield, could this not intercept some demand for new
housing closer to the conurbation and call into question the level of allocations being explored for
the three towns in Cheshire East ? Identification and promotion of sites for market housing has not
been a problem historically in Macclesfield and until recently the emphasis was upon restraint in
order to protect the Green Belt and avoid a mismatch between housing and employment in order to
reduce out-commuting. This approach may not continue and it appears that market pressures for
housing are crowding out other land uses, such as employment or the provision of affordable or
special needs housing. Social housing providers find it difficult to bid for sites against private
developers and affordable provision as a planning benefit is becoming at risk in view of changing
priorities of the coalition government and adverse perceptions of viability by the development
industry. The plan should however aim to reach some accommodation of these conflicts in order
that genuine housing needs are not overlooked or by-passed yet there is nothing in the strategy that
appears to address this beyond mere recognition of the need for affordable and elderly persons
housing.
First objective is vague; second is more specific. Strategy - total provision required amounts to 200
units per year. Achievable only if demand and finance forthcoming
ok
One of the advantages that Macclesfield has preserved is areas of natural beauty close to the town
centre. Building on these sites will substantially damage the character of the town and make it a
much poorer place to live. The local greenbelt areas are heavily used by residents to improve the
quality of their lives. The case for building low-density housing on these greenbelt areas is
inadequately justified in the plan - Macclesfield has substantial areas of brownfield sites that could
be redeveloped to provide housing with integrated car-parking close to the town centre and the
railway station.
Only brownfield development sites should be permitted. Of particular concern is the proposed
development between Hurdsfield and Buxton Road. This is an area used for recreation, especially
along the canal, by many local residents and is an area of considerable charm and attractiveness. It
will be a tragedy for the town if it is lost. Also contradicts the environmental plan of improving and
enhancing the Macclesfield Canal I would also like to understand the calculation behind the
requirement for 3,500 new homes which seems excessive for the needs of the local population
Plan for housing in the town centre and built-up areas, and leave the Green Belt alone. Where does
the figure of 3500 houses come from? That simply cannot be achieved without ruining the very
characteristics of which the draft Town Strategy speaks.
Please do not build on Macclesfield's green belt. This government will be out at the next election
and its "sustainable development" policy (i.e. relaxation of planning control) will be cancelled.
Page 81
Please make use of the numerous BROWN FIELD SITES around the town.
Plenty of houses up for sale and empty. Building on green belt is not the solution.
Plenty of land is available in the built up area which can be used for housing, the housing numbers
are too high, and the Green Belt performs an important function in terms of the long term planning
and sustainability of the region and therefore should not be undermined by ad hoc and detrimental
changes being made to it.
Plenty of unused housing in Macclesfield, why build more?
Population growth, and particularly household growth in the Macc area, are grossly overestimated,
leading to an unrealistically high supposed need for housing and affordable housing. Provision of
new housing on these numbers (3,500 over the period) will merely draw population away from
Crewe (the main focus of CEC's economic growth strategy) and from Manchester, increasing
commuting.
Potential development sites : D = agree Site H = agree Both undeveloped and accessible with links to
major roads Site F : DISAGREE Green belt Site G : DISAGREE Green belt/conservation areas/access
issues in places
Prioritise using existing buildings and town centre housing.
Promote town centre living
Provision of good quality low cost housing within the existing boundaries should be the priority. Only
when all brown field sites have been developed and improved should we then look to extend the
current boundaries and only then if there is sufficient work for the additional population to do.
Redevelopment of brown field sites must be the preferred option rather than green field sites.
re Development Options Area reference C- Land North of Prestbury Road. I do not agree with this
location of the additional housing required within the Macclesfield area. To locate new housing
within this area appears to be at odds with the Draft Strategy associated with Objective 6:
Environment. I strongly support the need to safeguard and increase the supply, quality and
accessibility of green spaces, to pay particular importance to nature conservation, geological
importance, to improve and enhance the Bollin Valley and to value the attractiveness and integrity
of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt. This area is adjacent to historic Ancient
Woodland and surrounded by the Riverside Park, an area which is regularly used by, and very
popular with, both the local Macclesfield community of all ages throughout the year and those from
further afield. To put housing in this area will negatively impact on the local environment, local
wildlife and add to pollution levels. My view is that there is already accessible access to this
countryside recreational facility. Placing housing next to this beautiful quiet area will make this a far
less attractive environmental experience for me and my family.
Redevelop existing housing before building new.
Renovate existing empty buildings and homes, that would benefit the local communities and keep
people in the town centre as set out in the CEC vision. Under no circumstances should green belt be
built on, it would not be in the interest of the future residents.
Require more care homes near town
No mention of all the empty properties around Macclesfield. Doubt very much that any affordable
housing (or social housing) will be available. Don't believe that Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road
could cope with any increased traffic. No mention of future projected increase in social housing
need.
I agree with the broad strategy, but have concerns regarding the detail.
Slow growing economy therefore even affordable homes are beyond peoples means
Should be close to town centre to encourage business in town. Where cars are required to travel
mainly superstores benefit.
Some acceleration is needed to get more houses built in Macclesfield
Strongly disagree on the basis that no justification is given for the town expanding by circa 10000
people. Within the boundaries covered by the strategy what percentage increase does this
Page 82
represent. 10000 people, 4000 cars and one new significant road?
Strongly disagree that new housing is necessary particularly at the expense of the green belt land
that gives the community its distinct character. Particularly object to site E which would encroach on
the countryside contrary to the environment strategy to make the most of green spaces and green
belt and to safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geological importance. The
beauty of living in Macclesfield is that it is surrounded by lovely countryside and it is distinct from
the urban sprawl which characterises Greater Manchester. Please do not throw this away for a few
new characterless houses which will alienate those of us who love and who have chosen to live in
Macclesfield because of its rural charm.
Strongly disagree to Site E proposals
Strongly disagree to site E.
Strongly disagree to Site E. Site E gives the local residents an area to walk and enjoy the GREEN BELT.
Strongly Disagree with Strategy 1. Housing Needs Assumption I would like to challenge the
unexplained statement that Macclesfield really needs a further 3500 homes by 2030. P2 Para 1.7
states The local plan will consider how much housing is needed P9 jumps to an immediate statement
of Strategy: Housing Deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new sites by 2030 P14 Para 6.2 gives
some statistics for Cheshire East as a whole but refers to: 314 affordable houses per year 2009/10 to
2013/14. We are now in 2012 and no comments beyond 2014 are made. Waiting List of 1,749 for
social housing for Macclesfield. This is surely a transient figure. Nowhere is a figure of 3500 new
homes for Macclesfield satisfactorily explained or justified. Why do we need 3500 additional homes
in Macclesfield when there are already 5485 empty houses in Cheshire of which 2,340 have been
empty for more than 6 months. Could the council inform us under freedom of information act how
many of those houses are in Macclesfield?
STRONGLY OBJECT TO SITE E!
Support "to provide a mix of house types, ensure that new housing is sustainable and secure more
spacious, high quality residential developments with adequate parking provisions"
Support mixed use developments particularly in the town centre Question whether spacious
development with adequate parking is consistent with transport objectives of encouraging walking,
cycling public transport etc
Surely there must be some unoccupied housing/properties for conversion and brown land which
could be used before cutting into the green belt. The green belt has been protected for years and it
appears that, as soon as there may be an opportunity to relax the rules, its days seem to be
numbered. The reason for protecting the green belt is to give us fresh air to breathe, support wildlife
and create a division between town and country. I paid good money to move from the town to
country and I do not wish to see the boundaries vanishing. I have been a working tax payer for 30
years and do not want to share my hard eared space with people in social housing. If Macclesfield is
at its limit for housing within the boundaries as suggested, then the new housing should be created
elsewhere. I would however question the figures quoted (24% increase in households by 2030??).
This would take the national figure from 60 to 75million in 18 years!!
The balance of housing provision should reflect the need to address shortfalls in social and
affordable housing
The case for 3500 homes being needed in Macc is not robust enough and should be reviewed
(please see Macc2020 correspondence). The trend towards single person accommodation is
changing, and brings its own problems in terms of space, sustainability, social cohesion. Town centre
living should be strongly encouraged, bringing unused flats above shops and derelict mills into use.
This would also support the broader vision for the town, where the town centre is the focus of
activity. Outlying developments contradict the vision of sustainable development (public transport
into town is poor) and a vibrant town centre (shoppers go out of town, and attracting evening use
for social/entertainment continues to be virtually non-existent).
The cost of housing is over bearing for the younger generation and first time buyers. The country
Page 83
and county MUST redress the need and rebalance the affordability of housing. This can be done by
building new houses. We cannot continue to price out the younger generation.
The detail of the proposed sites is more important.
The development of housing needs careful consideration so as not to spoil Macclesfield's unique
character. The large number of houses proposed in the west of Macclesfield will increase the strain
on the one connecting road to town and the east (Cumberland St / Hibel Rd). This has a major
potential to have an adverse effect on the unique character of the town centre - large enough to
have excellent shops and services, small enough to access easily
The development should start in the centre rather than on the outskirts. We need to think
differently about housing for older people and building this in locations that increase access to key
services and retail, rather than isolated on estates. We need to preserve our green spaces. Many
people like living in Macclesfield because of their proximity to the countryside, we do not wish this
to be further from our homes making it harder to keep active and fit and maintain our wellbeing.
The document does not make clear why there is need for 3,500 new homes. Existing house owners
seem to have had considerable difficulty in finding buyers for their homes when they have put them
on the market (several in Peter Street have remained unsold for long periods): this does not suggest
large-scale unsatisfied demand for houses.
The evidence for 3500 new homes needs to be clear.
The fourth bullet point under Strategy is unnecessary. The second point covers a mix of housing
types which can include those covered in Point 4.
The green belt must be preserved - indeed this is part of the strategy, yet the housing development
appears to contravene this
The green belt should remain as it is. There are plenty of brownfield development opportunities.
The housing numbers are too high - existing empty houses need addressing link road and Moss
Development can provide all.
The housing strategy has been given the least amount of thought possible. It is as though you have
looked at the map and filled in whatever green spaces are left, and to make Macclesfield a complete
circle. Macclesfield prides itself in being a town surrounded by greenbelt with heritage and a strong
community. With the additional housing, congestion on the roads etc, Macclesfield is looking more
like a suburb of Stockport and no doubt we will be joined to them if we believe all the hype of
additional housing that "we must build". Fill the brown sites first and then re evaluate the situation.
The housing strategy seems to be at the expense of local beauty spots!
The infrastructure of the town is unable to sustain such a large increase in population and traffic
The location of Site C is totally inappropriate for the following reasons :- It will ruin the Bollin valley the Bollin valley will no longer act as a beautiful piece of countryside separating Prestbury from
Macclesfield, it will just become some parkland in between housing estates The gap between
suburb of Macclesfield. Upton woods would be ruined.
The locations for the housing types favour large house companies who simply wish to build on open
fields. We need more imaginative housing that can in fill the areas empty in the town already and
avoid creating a doughnut town where the centre is dead with suburbs outside.
the main need is for inexpensive housing for young people and families
The need for housing for ordinary people not the wealthy who can afford to move out of the town is
of paramount importance at the moment
The number of houses proposed by 2030 represents too great an increase and would threaten the
countryside around Macclesfield and its small market town appeal.
The number of new homes looks excessive when compared to the population of the town and the
expected growth (3,500 new homes, population just over 50,000). It would be better to link home
building to increase in local employment and/or movement’s in house prices, both would suggest an
extra 3,500 new homes are not required. I would also suggest a greater focus on where these
Page 84
developments should be, sites on the greenbelt around the town will clearly reduce access to the
countryside for present residents, a huge asset of living in Macc, have sites further outside been
considered rather than building on the edge of town.
The objective as stated appears somewhat idealistic and the strategy makes no mention of how the
objective of increasing the number of people living in the town centre is to be achieved. I would
support the strategy of providing adequate parking provision to high quality residential development
which represents a change from the planning authority’s policy in recent years.
The Objective of providing more town centre housing is excellent; how this will be done is not
mentioned in the Strategy
The Objective states "to provide the opportunity for everyone to live in a good quality home, sited in
a well designed neighbourhood.......meet the current and future needs." Increase the number of
people living in the town centre. I do not disagree with the objective but I do disagree with the bit
here / bit there of Green belt sites that have been put forward to achieve this. I can only comment
about Site C but adding of 360 houses will not create a well designed neighbourhood but put a
increasing strain on an already over stretch infrastructure. The schools and roads in the area are not
capable of supporting more people. Site A and B will also add to local problems. This housing will
make matters worse for current residents and not achieve the objective for future residents. If this
housing objective is to be achieved as stated then it needs to be done in one area so that the
necessary infrastructure can be included from the start. I agree with more people living in town and
feel that there are more brownfield sites (land opposite Tesco’s) that could be used to provide
additional housing. I also feel that another reasonable alternative is to look at the number of empty
houses. The figures available at
http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/localregional/localgovernmentfinance/statistics/
counciltaxbase/ based on the council tax show that in 2008 there were 3114 empty houses in the
borough of Macclesfield as was. Figures for 2010 are for Cheshire East as a whole and stand at 6189.
There is little reason to think that the figure for Macclesfield would have changed considerably.
Therefore I feel this option should be explored before Green Belt boundaries should be altered as
this should be done in only exceptional circumstances. The document states that we need 3500 new
homes, while figures have been provided there is not sufficient evidence provided and the point is
debatable. Therefore the whole housing element of this strategy is based on an unsatisfactory
explanation and for the purposes of this consultation unsatisfactory premise.
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. To provide the
opportunity for everyone to live in a good quality, energy efficient home, sited in a well designed
neighbourhood, which they can afford, through a mix of housing types and tenures in appropriate
locations to meet the current and future needs and aspirations of the town To increase the number
of people living in the town centre ¢ Deliver a level of house building which is commensurate with
extrapolated Regional Spatial Strategy figures (including sites that already have planning permission)
with an aim of providing over 70% on brownfield land Provide a mix of housing types and tenures,
including affordable and elderly persons housing, to meet current and future needs of the town,
based on a moderate growth scenario. The ability to work from home must be a prerequisite of all
new housing development Ensure that new housing development is sustainable, energy efficient,
designed to a high standard and is appropriate to the local character and heritage of the area with
the required infrastructure in place. Housing developments of appropriate scale will need to be
accompanied by proposals for low carbon energy supply and distribution, green travel corridors, and
climate impact adaptation measures ¢ Work with centres of excellence to adopt prudential
investment in domestic retro-fit energy efficient systems Secure a higher percentage of affordable
living accommodation than has been achieved in the recent past in order to ensure that young
people brought up in the area can stay in the area if they so desire when they take their first steps
on the housing ladder * [N.B. notwithstanding the other strategy items, Macc2020 wishes to see
robust, detailed data on the manner in which these numbers have been derived. We are also
concerned that the current emphasis is on housing numbers, when housing typology and mix of
Page 85
development types are far more important factors in the choice of sites than mere quantum of
development].
The objectives are supported but Jones Homes do not believe that these will be achieved by the
strategy outlined. Based on Councils research, consider homes for 5,800 new households must be
provided by 2030 to meet its own locally generated needs. As a principal town within the Borough,
Macclesfield could be expected to meet a higher proportion of Cheshire East’s needs. 3,500 homes
will not tackle affordability problems nor adequately meet the needs of the town in terms of newly
forming households with the consequence of higher prices and perpetuate unsustainable travel
patterns detrimental to potential investment g and growth. Object to 3,500 and should be more
realistically between 5,500 and 6,000 homes.
The preservation and restoration of existing 19th & 20th stock should be part of the plan.
The problem is in the detail. The development in the South west, between A536 and A537, is
unacceptable and would be vigorously opposed by residents of Henbury.
The proposal to increase the number of people living in the town centre needs to be considered very
carefully as the theory is excellent but we do not want the practice to lend itself to poor quality
buildings, possibly a further 14,000 people. Where are these people going to work? Which GP
surgeries will be able to accommodate them? Which schools are able to take the children? Do we
have the infrastructure in place to adequately cater for their need? This needs a lot more
consideration - do we really want to encourage this massive population explosion in 18 years. Where
is the evidence to show this is necessary?
The proposed housing numbers look too high - there are lots of derelict properties within the town
centre that could be developed before proposed land
The scale; location and timing of development in Macclesfield are essential for the identification;
planning and timely delivery of water supply and sewerage infrastructure required to support
development and therefore your plan.
The sites A and J will severely affect the life of the residents who opted to live in this area due to the
fields and local wildlife. Greenbelt should be protected as stated in the town plan, at a different
stage. You cannot possibly allow the development of 1,600 house on such a small area of fields. The
local community will fight this at every stage should the proposal go ahead. There must be a greener
option to accommodate the future housing needs of the town. Let's get empty houses used and old
buildings converted. Use brownfield sites.
The strategy is ok, but the green belt must be preserved. All the talk of nestling at the edge of the
peak district is fine, but we need to look after our immediate environment.
The threat of urban spread and reduction in country amenities would be detrimental to the town.
The Bollin valley park, Middlewood way, and canal are tremendous assets. They should be retained
and enhanced by providing more inner town links to interconnect these facilities.
Page 86
The town has grown and grown and has reached its limits, with traffic problems becoming more &
more dreadful.
The town needs more housing. The younger generation needs more housing so that they are
maintained at an affordable level for the coming years. Whilst prices are not rising currently without
an increase in houses being built inflation will take hold again and price many out of the opportunity
to own their own homes. Something that has been enjoyed and produced economic stability for
previous generations. The town and country also needs a boost from an increase in construction in
the town. Clearly this cannot be achieved by recklessly building on the peak district but certain
strategic sites that can produce excellent environments for new communities should be considered,
even if this is in the green belt.
The town needs to retain as much green space as possible. The green belt should remain protected
for reasons of infrastructure and wildlife.
The type of housing that’s developed will dictate and influence the economic development. Whilst I
strongly accept the need for affordable housing, the town must also encourage further development
of quality houses in order to attract those who can economically enhance the area.
The use of brownfield sites and existing planning permissions for housing must be prioritised
otherwise developers will develop those sites giving greatest returns leaving those less favourable
sites already given planning permission to decrease the visual appeal of the town. There is also a
need to encourage the provision of residential accommodation in the town centre. In both
Manchester and Liverpool this has resulted in increased safety for both visitors and residents.
Residents will also use the retail, leisure and cultural opportunities the town centre provides. Use of
old mills, factories etc and other large buildings can provide flats and apartments which are more
affordable for first-time buyers.
The use of green belt land denies future generations the amenity of much needed open space and
will further reduce the opportunity for wild life to prosper.
There are a lot of buildings in Macclesfield that should be pulled down because they are dangerous,
some in the centre of town, some on the outskirts. Why not spend money to do these up instead of
ruining our green belt and making small roads more dangerous.
There are already plenty of good quality homes - brand new ones that have never been lived in
which they can't sell!! Why ruin good greenbelt to erect another "Jonesville" estate just so that
Jones homes can again reap all the benefits. There is a mix of good housing - if the objective is to
increase the number of people living in the town centre then build on the old TA site and not out of
town in Whirley/Henbury where you will be destroying the visual amenity for many and destroying
the greenbelt. Where are all these people supposed to be coming from who the Council believe
want to live in the area - where are the new Jobs coming from or where will they be created?
There are already too many houses in Macclesfield and surrounding areas.
There are already too many residents to be sensibly supported by the current infrastructure. The
roads can't cope with the current volumes of traffic and are not well enough maintained. Build /
improve infrastructure first, before building more houses. I particularly object to location C, as
Abbey Road is already a "Car Park" and a hazardous one when it's start / close time at Bollinbrook
Primary - this road can't cope with being made into a major thoroughfare to a big new estate.
There are ideas for some huge housing developments in the west of the town, and in my mind these
are too many in number and of far too great a size. 900 houses is a very big estate. The only
secondary school in the west is Fallibroome which is already a very big school. The area around it is
very very busy in the mornings and at school pick up time, and a large increase in housing would put
excessive strain on an area that is already busy. There are smaller schools in the south that could
cope with an increase. How would the traffic produced from a massive estate on Birtles Road feed
into Macclesfield. Brocken Cross is a nightmare as it is.
There has been New Housing Development on Whirley Road - it is still not fully occupied with many
units still unsold, new housing is not required!
Page 87
There is justification only for limited development
There is no doubt that the housing quota is necessary and there will never be agreement on the
sites. The design, however, is important, with the use of Cheshire brick where possible and creating
green spaces for recreation and play as part of the design.
There is plenty of built up area land for housing. The housing numbers are too high. The green belt
should remain.
There is plenty of land in the built up area which could be used for housing. Green Belt area is
important for long term
There is plenty of land in the built up areas in and around Macclesfield which could be utilised for
housing. One has to question the figures on the amounts of housing projected as they seem
excessive. As detailed in the consultation document the green belt performs an important function
in terms of the long term planning of the region, and should not be undermined by ad hoc changes
to it!
There is so much waste and inefficiently used land that you should reject the soft option of "new"
sites.
There is still land in the built up areas which would be best for building on, the housing numbers are
too great and the green belt has an important part in the future long term planning of the region
There is undoubtedly a need for more housing to be built in England, although this need is clearly
not so pressing in NW England as in the South East
There should be no new housing built on greenbelt land. All other available land and buildings
should be put to good use, even though this is not the most attractive option for developers.
Think twice before using Green Belt land. Affordable housing important
This is farcical! Why are we trying to bring in more people to our town? Who does it benefit? Are we
trying to strengthen the gene pool? The idea behind sustainability is not to try and re-home Essex.
There are a great number of Brown-field sites, old mills etc, that could be turned into housing, yet
the developers choose to go for Green-field sites to maximise profit. The council had land that
housed a large number of people, it was Victoria Park, yet it chose to demolish the flats and sold the
land for developers to build high-cost housing. Now we are supposed to pay the price by losing our
green-belt? The answer is no.
This is the difficult one. I accept the need for more housing. I prefer building on brownfield sites, but
recognise the limitation in Macc. (I assume the area to the East of the Silk Road (near Tesco), which
is currently un- or under-used, has been considered.) If we have to build on greenbelt sites, then
there needs to be consistency with the objective of enhancing green space (Town Centre and
Environment strategies). Towns that allow green spaces to come in from the surrounding
countryside are immeasurably preferable to those that differentiate heavily between green and nongreen areas. Housing developments on green belt on the outskirts of the town are preferable,
therefore, to ones that remove greenbelt from more central parts. Star-shaped towns are better
than circular ones.
This needs to be achieved appropriately taking onboard all of Macclesfield's policies regarding
Greenbelt, the environment, conservation areas rather than through money and power within the
community or political status!
To assist with sustainability, it would appear sensible to modest numbers of local shops within
developments. For example, on the large Tytherington estate it appears necessary to get back to the
main road (15 minutes walk) to get a pint of milk. This forces people to use their cars for short
journeys which could be easily eliminated.
To build the number of houses as suggested, especially on green belt land would destroy the
character of the town.
Too many new houses. Brown field areas should be developed and derelict house should be
refurbished in Town Centre
Too many new houses/apartments being built. Most modern houses look cheap, and do not fit in
Page 88
with the surrounding area.
too many unsold houses in the area already without the need for more houses going on sale
Too much encroachment into Green Belt particularly F and G = 2000+ dwellings is unacceptable.
Green area must be maintained between Macclesfield town and open countryside
Totally against the recommendation to build >3000 homes, as this will destroy the local Green Belt,
which is why I've stayed & lived in this area all my life
Town centre accommodation could be provided where the empty office block is, above Park Green
Under Strategy Housing needs to provide a mix of housing types including private housing and needs
to add that word to the second bullet point. Broken Cross and Upton ward have mixed housing and
the National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 50 of the need to provide a wide choice
of high quality homes. Failure to do so will severely restrict choice for new buyers as to where
private housing can largely be obtained in Macclesfield (such as Tytherington) and will restrict the
choice away from locations which are not too far from the town centre such as Broken Cross and
Upton. Whilst affordable housing is needed, there is also a need to provide a range of housing in a
range of different areas of Macclesfield, to avoid the creation of areas of particular social need. To
aim to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes. (Note this is stated in the NPPF from paragraph
47-why do we refer to good rather than high quality homes- this is aiming too low). Brownfield sites
should be developed and no housing development should be allowed in green belt areas unless a
sequential test has been passed which proves that there are no suitable Brownfield sites which could
be developed instead for any type of housing (private, affordable, mixed). Housing Development
should not be considered unless the proper infra-structure of adequate roads, schools, health,
community and leisure facilities have been provided by the community infrastructure levy. Housing
needs to be plan led and in sustainable locations with the necessary infrastructure to support any
new developments.
Unsupported assumption that 3500 homes on new sites are required. Strongly disagree to use
greenbelt.
Use brownfield and derelict land. Preserve green open spaces ('lungs') between areas of housing
Use existing brown sites first and foremost. Do not encroach on our beautiful greenbelt. Keep our
town separate - divided by our Greenbelt land - from the close villages and towns of Bollington,
Gawsworth etc
Using the green belt land on the Bollin valley would spoil the area, create traffic on the Larch Vale
estate, and put further pressure on local amenities.
We agree with the need to increase the number of houses available, however this should be
focussed on regenerating the town centres and converting old warehouses etc into quality flats and
residences. The danger is by extending the town out you then loose the special feel Macclesfield has
and it simply becomes yet another expanded town with no one being able to benefit from the views
and location by the peaks. new housing needs to be limited to brown belt and reusing disused
buildings
We do need more housing but on brown field sites and town centre rather than Green Belt land. Too
much housing and we won't remain a market town, it will be too built up
We do need some housing, but there are many houses left derelict which should be brought back
into use which will save on the need for so many new houses.
We DO NOT need a further 3,500 homes in Macclesfield. This can only be a money making scheme
for someone. What is the justification? None is presented in the document.
We do not need any more housing. The schools are oversubscribed and this will create more traffic
in already busy areas. Spend money on improving the areas we already have and converting derelict
buildings. New houses will remain empty as people cannot afford to buy.
We do not need so many houses. We can't sell those one already here.
We strongly object to the proposition of houses being built on green belt areas when there is ample
waste ground and disused buildings in and around the town centre.
Page 89
When planning new housing developments priority should be given to ensuring there are good
public transport links to the town centre and retail outlets/supermarkets. Housing developments
should also consider the likely increase in home working.
Where does the 3500 number come from? Better parking provision is required for all the existing
terraced houses.
Where is the justification for 3500 new homes? Do we have the infrastructure to support these? We
have a good record of reusing brownfield sites - can we continue this where possible.
While the housing objectives are reasonable they do not mean much until the specific locations are
selected. I certainly endorse the view that the developments should principally be in the west and
south of the town.
Whilst agreeing with the objectives, I have a lot of reservations about how this will be delivered. It
seems to me inevitable that the houses may well be built but the government funding for the
necessary improvements to roads and infrastructure will not be fully available. This will lead to
poorly designed estates with inadequate local resources to cope with the increased traffic, medical
services, schools, rubbish collections, etc. The effect will be to downgrade quality of life in
Macclesfield for both old and new residents.
Whilst I accept the need to build new houses, many of the sites identified are currently in Green Belt
and I would be against large scale developments that would destroy areas of natural beauty.
Why deliver 3500 homes in Macclesfield - need to look overall at Cheshire East demand and locate
accordingly
Why do we want Macc to get bigger/have more people? In my lifetime it has grown alarmingly from
a nice little town with proper shops to an urban sprawl.
Why should you be allowed to build on green belt land the whole idea of it being green belt is so
that we have open green spaces for the wildlife and the area
With the caveat that there is careful consideration of the impact on each area in particular
environmental and traffic.
with the prospect of more business scaling back and big employers such as Zeneca reducing
employment we don’t need more expensive housing
Within housing need to reflect Sustainable in regards to infrastructure. This needs to be included in
this area as Housing has a massive impact on local facilities. In addition, consideration for provision
of community facilities.
Without encroaching on Green Belt land. Making use of Brownfield & derelict land
Would agree if Green Belt was left alone. Use brownfield sites. Expand outside instead of crowding
inside
Yes I agree that CE should be enabling the development of good quality houses, who wouldn't?
However I would challenge the need to provide 3,500 homes by 2030. This figure came from a
survey that asked residents whether they would like to live in 3 or 4 bed roomed houses. Naturally
they said yes. What wasn't asked was whether they could afford such homes. The building of such a
large number of houses will lead to an oversupply, which will either draw people in from other areas
or cause a fall in the value of all houses. Neither seems to be a desirable outcome.
You don't need more 4/5 bedroom houses but do need flats and affordable houses
Your options lean too far towards housing, and it is too concentrated in the South West, which is
already the densest part of town population wise (I used to be curate in a Church there), and where
transport provision is already appalling. Up to 3000 homes would bring up to 6000 cars, which would
make the South West a very unpleasant part of town to live, and wholly unable to deal with this
amount of traffic. Plus what is lovely about the Town is that wherever you live, you can walk, pretty
much, into the countryside - that is one of our key features. Wildlife comes into the Town and
garden and we can get out into the country easily. The South West estates around the Weston and
Lakeland would because unpleasantly marooned in a sea of houses. The easiest way into and out of
Macc is via the Silk Road - surely development should be around this area, and at the very least your
Page 90
3300 homes should be spread over the whole of the Town. Plus, you say you want to reduce our
carbon footprint, but this uses up mainly Greenfield sites. We should be looking at redeveloping
multiple sites around the town that make most use of brown field opportunities - there are plenty of
these around the town, it could significantly improve the look of the place.
Page 91
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Access and Transport
Do you agree or disagree with the Access and Transport Objectives and Strategy as set
out in the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy?
• Strongly Agree (18%); Agree (39%); Neither Agree or Disagree (23.6%); Disagree (9.5%);
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
"Develop high quality pedestrian and cycle links networks to improve access to the countryside and
to link parks and open spaces" Suggest specifically links from station to Peak District park be
emphasised, few towns have a station within 30 mins walking of national park.
1. What new road infrastructure? Access around town is pretty good really. 2. I don't see any need
for further investment in the railway station. It works well! I use the station on an at least weekly
basis. 3. More provision for cyclists would be welcome, although I realise this is hard to achieve on
narrow streets. There have been some good, off-road cycle routes developed recently. Additions to
this network would be good to have.
A bus from the Bus Station to the Hospital, Railway Station etc needed at frequent intervals
A day rider ticket available on all local bus services (whoever the operator) would encourage public
transport use. A direct bus link to Manchester Airport would be useful. Please retain some evening
bus services on key routes within the town and to Wilmslow, Congleton and Bollington. I oppose
building of the South Macclesfield link road between the A537 (west) and A536, although the link
between the A536 and A523 (south) is reasonable.
A massive increase in town parking is required at affordable prices. Although the provision of a link
road could be useful, it requires far more consideration than a statement of desire. The detail must
be looked at carefully. For other reasons it may prove impractical.
A number of the sites are near to already overcrowded, busy roads. The proposed site 3291 in
particular is on a dangerous section of Prestbury road and any action to calm the traffic would only
create additional congestion and pollution on a road that s used by many young children walking to
and from schools.
A rebuilt railway station is a priority. The station does the town no favours
A vision of Metro style tramway to T2 Manchester Airport should have high priority. Its pay-off
DraftMacclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Access and Transport
Page 92
viability will be linked to successful conference/leisure facility concepts.
Agree with the Access and Transport objectives, as the routes into the town by road are regularly
heavy with traffic.
Creating well connected communities ensuring that infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is
integrated within new development and by improving existing public realm and routes into/out of
town centres
Access is the biggest problem.
Access will be a great problem if you intend to direct the traffic down Higher Fence Road. This is a
problematic narrow road at the best of times. Also the exit/entrance onto Hurdsfield Road is very
difficult at the moment without any further vehicular traffic to cope with.
Activity to reduce traffic congestion should not equal road building activity... invest in making the
town more cyclist friendly, sustain bus services, more pedestrianised areas - make the town more
viable without a car and make people sitting in traffic jams (me included) think about the
alternatives.
Again this is about building - what is the strategy for car park charging which drives people away
from the town centre. It also drives illegal and dangerous parking elsewhere - strategy for this??
Agree with most aspects, but not convinced on effectiveness of full link road to reduce congestion.
Agree with development of south development area, but strongly reject idea of further link across
green belt. Even if it is not decided to develop area I now, it leaves this open to obvious
development in future generations beyond 2030. Also I do not think it will be effective at reducing
congestion as too far round for people & they will continue to drive thru town from Chelford Road
Agreed, only if the South Macclesfield Development does not go ahead. There is no need for extra
out of town retail development, or to move the Football club.
All transport should be accessible - all routes of public transport should provide wheelchair access.
Taxis should NOT be allowed to charge exorbitant prices for carrying people in a wheelchair.
Also support the implementation of "Park and Ride" schemes, using the bus station as a drop-off
point.
An efficient bus service from all parts of Macclesfield with fares that people can afford. The South
Macclesfield Link Road will help to ease the congestion currently experienced when driving into
Macclesfield from the South.
A new road linking Congleton to Chelford road, firstly spoils delightful greenbelt countryside and
secondly does not warrant the cost due to the limited amounts of traffic which would utilise it.
And would direct some cycling / walking plans to-wards accessing the Peak District national park.
Appalling congestion on London Road caused by proliferation of traffic lights which are not coordinated.
As long as the parking is free
As with all the aspirations in this draft strategy, the difficulty will be in translating them into practice
on the ground, even if an economic upturn eventually occurs. To "improve road access to the M6"
would surely require a Congleton bypass!
Avoid all new roads building instead focus on better public transport and cycling /walking
Because of lack of substantive reference to a private car which is preferred reality for most town
centre users and those moving around town
Before developing further roads into Manchester, to the M6, to the airport etc we need to put in
place a serious proposal to sort out the complete traffic chaos within this town from local traffic.
People like myself who mainly just drive around town are struggling on a year by year basis due to
poor road marking, inadequate policing of the roads, badly designed junctions, badly maintained
roads. Pedestrians struggle due to badly maintained pavements and pathways. School children do
not have access to adequate bus services - therefore mothers have to take them in cars. Let us sort
out locally FIRST !!!
Better and cheaper transport is needed especially for disabled and families and access will be
Page 93
needed to the newly developed shopping areas of the town. Shop mobility should definitely remain
and should be free.
Better links to Manchester Airport and M6 are imperative if Macclesfield is to attract new business.
Better pedestrian pavement including disable gantries.
Better public transport will also ease congestion areas but must exist first. S. Macc development
area has very little housing as of now? Why can one huge multi-storey car park address this increase
of visitors when in only one part of town with attendant problems of the all ready over burdened
Churchill Way.
Bike lanes would be fantastic! And if you want Macclesfield to be a destination for shoppers etc, sort
out the awful parking!
But . . .Add after' car parking', by use of RACK CARPARKING SYSTEMS MAIN PARK SYSTEM. This is
more sustainable and less land take.
but the document needs to be sharpened up so as to provide "for all ages and mobility’s
But there is no mention of highway maintenance. I have reported the blocked drains along Prestbury
Road near Bollinbrook Road regularly for the seven years we have lived here, but they are still
causing huge lakes along the gutter which then soak all the pedestrians for many metres on both
sides of the road, every time a car passes. It is especially bad from Westfield Avenue to Home Farm
Avenue, with at least 4 distinct lakes and rivers. Multiple problems well known to the council with
NO effective response. Does not bode well for the amount of delivery and provision and
improvement promised. Macclesfield cycle routes are feeble. This is why I often see adults riding
their bike on the pavement - very unsatisfactory as well as illegal! The Cheshire Cycleway is a delight,
but it is a separate issue to cycling anywhere for work rather than leisure and pleasure.
But with the expansion of both Poynton and Macclesfield we can expect ever more traffic on the
A523 North of the town. The original plan was to continue to Bonis Hall Lane - this needs to be
reactivated and proposals have been put forward to councillors and David Rutley for a less
controversial near line improvement. We now have heavy traffic on a road with multiple driveways,
side roads and even cows crossing. After the fatal accident at the Adlington junction and the sharp
bends on the route, consideration should be given to the whole stretch from the end of the current
Silk Road to a South Poynton bypass.
Car parking charges only deter trade locally and people will got to superstores where parking is free.
Car parking for shoppers needs to be free otherwise people will be drawn to retail parks
Car parks should allow free parking for one hour for people just to nip to a shop or post office etc
and cheaper parking to encourage people to shop then stay to go to a cafe etc.
Certainly the South Macclesfield Link Road is essential and has been for many years.
Congestion cripples Macclesfield during rush hours and the proposed link roads will go some way
towards relieving this. The pinch point which needs addressing and does not seem to feature in your
plan is the north side of Macclesfield; for example to get from the Silk Road out to Chester Road
requires all this volume of traffic from the Silk Road dual carriageway to travel up Hibel Road and
Cumberland Street and past Sainsbury’s. This section of road could benefit from being widened to
accommodate 2 lanes of traffic in each direction. Given the physical constraints of surrounding
property this may not be feasible. However, what is achievable is the provision of a pedestrian
bridge across Cumberland Street (section beside Kings School), which would avoid the need to stop
traffic flow for pedestrian crossing, as this significantly adds to the bottle neck and build up of traffic
in this area.
Congestion is a key concern in the southern part of Greater Manchester, particularly on the A6,
A523, A34 and A56 and on parts of the motorway network. Significant additional commuter trips on
the congested corridors will have an adverse impact on journey times in Cheshire East and Greater
Manchester, to the detriment of businesses, commuters and local residents. The focus of Greater
Manchester's transport policy is to maintain and improve transport journey time reliability through a
combination of modal shift to public transport and active travel and travel management measures to
Page 94
make the best use of the existing highway network. Although overcrowding on rail services in the
area is currently a serious problem throughout the whole morning peak period, Transport for
Greater Manchester (TfGM) is continuing to work in partnership with Network Rail to deliver
additional rail vehicles over and above the capacity already committed under HL0S1, as well as
committed electrification. The Local Transport Plans of Greater Manchester and Cheshire East both
aim to reduce congestion, improve the overall efficiency of the highway network, improve access to
key services and reduce the need to travel. It will be important for Local Authorities to develop a
joint approach to the location of development and delivery of infrastructure, within the context of
available funding. Development in areas that are well connected by public transport, particularly rail,
would reduce the additional demands placed on the highway network and potentially help to
support the case for additional investment in rolling stock and other improvements.
Consideration given to increasing pedestrianised areas
Current bus services used by elderly and infirm terminate at 6pm so they have no access to evening
facilities. There is no easy access between the railway and bus stations. Most bus routes change in
the evening. There is no circular route from the current housing estates via leisure and hospital
facilities. Wouldn't this improve the town’s facilities if relative could visit hospital via public transport
instead of filling the limited space with private cars? Access to leisure facilities for non car users
would also be an advantage.
Cycle lanes in town (not only cycle links networks to access the countryside) are as important as
cycle parking for the everyday cyclist. Also, more roads mean more cars and more pollution, traffic
and congestion, so no thank you.
Cycling: We don't just need routes into the countryside; cycling lanes alongside roads/footpaths
should be standard in all new infrastructure developments.
Deliver the development of the South Macclesfield Link Road in conjunction with the development
of the South Macclesfield Development Area - this needs very careful consultation. The silk road has
divided essential components of Macclesfield and the repeat of this problem would be a major
detrimental effect on Macclesfield. Development of outside parking areas, with park and ride should
be considered for encouraging transport into the town centre. Improve pedestrian links into and
across the town centre - this must be in keeping with the character of Macclesfield e.g. cobbled
streets with appropriate alternative access for disabled individuals/pushchairs I strongly disapprove
of increased parking in the town centre. However, improvement and new cycle parking and cycle
routes are vital Improving the railway station and links from the railway station to the town centre
should be conducted in character with Macclesfield Maintain and strive to improve the existing level
of bus and rail services, and to strive to improve accessibility to the leisure centre. Improve
accessibility to and within the town for all members of society. Develop high quality pedestrian and
cycle links networks to improve access to the countryside and to link parks and open spaces. I
strongly disapprove of improving transport links to Manchester Airport unless it is via public
transport. The character ad countryside must be maintained Improve road access to the M6
motorway - this should not be conducted due to maintaining the countryside Support improvements
to the A523 and links to South East Manchester Multi Modal Study (SEMMS) relief road. 10
Detail - more emphasis needed on sustainability e.g. park and ride options, green walkways from
local centres, bicycle paths into town centre.
Do not agree with building on conservation or Green Belt sites
Do not allow any new roads to encroach on our Greenbelt land.
Don't engineer bottle necks into our road system. Look at Stockport if you want to see how bad a
traffic infrastructure can be! Macclesfield moves pretty well at the moment. Spend the money on a
bypass for Poynton or Hazel Grove.
Ease traffic congestion by reducing need for cars i.e. increase and improve bus services and
encourage people to use them. Parking should be provided with elderly and disabled in mind i.e.
surface level safe and adjacent to town centre activities. Environmental objectives need to be added
into the section
Page 95
Encourage people to town centre by free parking to compete with supermarkets and other towns
nearby with cheaper parking fees.
Encourage use of public transport; consider parking needs in conjunction with bus and taxi provision
(taxi provision in Macc is good)
Essential to provide good public transport within the town and to/from the adjacent villages to
minimise car use - essential as people get older and unable to drive
Evening and Sunday bus services do not exist where I live
For Area Reference J Chelford Road/Whirley Road - Whirley Road currently cannot cope with the
traffic that passes up and down it each day so by increasing the number of house and people living in
this area will create total grid-lock and further danger to motorists, walkers and children especially
as there is a school on this road
Frequent and speedy links to Manchester are essential. A direct link to the airport and main
hospitals are also needed.
Further clarification over transport links to Manchester airport, road access to motorway and the
South East Manchester multi modal study.
Get roads repaired first. provide access from main roads and not existing estate roads, which are
already in disrepair
Getting across the town by car can take up to 40 minutes in rush hour and this needs to be
improved. Simple things like looking at the timing of pedestrian crossing lights would make a huge
difference to the flow of traffic. Maintain ability to pop to the town centre by keeping car parks close
to the shops.
Growth will need to be supported by a better traffic system for travelling around Macclesfield.
Traffic flows better in a north south direction (and vice versa) than it does east- west, therefore I
support developments which don't add to the traffic problems around Regency
Mill/Sainsbury’s/Kings School.
Having lived in many areas around the Northwest I find that Macclesfield has an excellent road
system. Building new roads does not always lessen congestion especially if new houses are built
around them. Try Stockport and South Manchester! Access is already good and there are many
roads out of Macclesfield in all directions. Providing links to many towns and the countryside.
town centre.
How can access to the bus station /train station be improved?? they are not difficult to get to as
things are Whilst the needs of the genuinely disables need to be taken into account please ensure
ample parking for the able bodied remembering those who have to travel in form the rural areas
How do you propose to improve inks to Manchester Airport and the M6 when they are well outside
the boundaries of Cheshire East?
However as well as cycle parking and pedestrian links into town we need safe cycle routes. Again
access is a key factor for all. Cycle routes will also be key for mobility scooters as we have more older
people and ensuring there are safe alternatives to using the roads is desirable and safer for all. I
would have liked to see more emphasis on alternative transport options to reduce care usage and
the impact of it on our environment, e.g. park and ride, bike taxis, bike routes, etc.
Hurdsfield have no buses after tea-time. A disgrace as people cannot go into town as I will not take
my car as you can’t have a drink and drive so people can’t go to see a film or anything else all people
can’t afford a taxi both ways
I agree we should encourage more use of public transport. We do not need more major roads as
they will lead to infill with more homes. I assume the Manchester Airport lobby are behind a better
link to the airport. Air travel is ruining the earth we should discourage it. More roads mean more
cars and more pollution - no thanks.
I agree with the development of greater access for walkers and cyclists, but I don't see how
Macclesfield town centre can support the parking for anymore cars without very ugly multi-storey
Page 96
car parks that will inevitably create for too much traffic on the roads, which then leads on to the
development of more roads, which cut into greenbelt and / or Greenfield sites damaging and
destroying wild life habitat and areas of recreation and quiet space that we humans deeply need. A
park and ride plan would be better and far cheaper bus and train fares.
I agree with the objective but as I indicated above, I do not believe that adequate funding for this
will be available. This is probably going to lead to half-delivered plans that will do no favours to our
community.
I agree with the Objective but the Strategy does not adequately support it. There is a clear objective
to improve traffic congestion, but no element of the strategy would appear to make the required
impact. Macclesfield appears to be one of the most congested town centre areas especially during
rush hour.
I agree with the objectives, but doubt the reality will match the need; and suspect that traffic
congestion will worsen
I am completely opposed to the proposal of a South Macclesfield link road. We have so many roads
in this country already that if we have reached the stage where feel we need to carve up more
countryside with more roads then something has definitely gone wrong. For example - I have spent
many years of my life living on Chelford Road (since 1984 until very recently) and seen a steady
increase in the amount of traffic over time. However, I never witnessed congestion until the
roundabout at Broken Cross was reduced to one lane and traffic lights were introduced on Chester
Road at the junction with Fieldbank Road. All of a sudden we see regular rush hour tailbacks from
Broken cross roundabout to Church lane in Henbury and similar congestion on Chester road. These
problems could be solved very simply with better sequencing (or preferably removal) of the traffic
lights and re-modelling of the roundabout at Broken cross to allow a faster, but still safe, flow of
traffic. Additionally, due to advances with the internet and communications, there is a growing trend
among employers encouraging home working. Has it been taken into account that by 2030 this could
lead to a significant reduction in rush hour traffic? I am very much in favour of improved cycle and
pedestrian networks along with improved public transport links as, together with more intelligent
traffic management, these should mitigate the need for more roads.
I am in favour of an integrate transport policy linking train and bus. Also, more cycle paths.
I am pleased that access to the town centre for all has been included in the strategy. Whilst parking
is a necessary evil to increase visitors to the town centre, no viable option is given as an alternative.
Strive to maintain the number of bus services is disappointing, but alas probably realistic. If there
were bus services every 10 mins, people would use them, but as they are mostly limited to one an
hour, people do not.
I do not believe any significant improvements can be made to the road network without massive
investments which is unlikely in the current climate. However Macclesfield train station is little more
than an eyesore, and needs significant upgrading
I do not see the need for an improved access to the M6 if it again is to the detriment of our
environment. The access network seems perfectly adequate to me.
I don't find enough information about the south Macclesfield relief road in the plan.
I don't see much wrong with the station. The town certainly needs to be more cyclist friendly.
I especially want to see: * Better integration between rail and bus. * Better cycling routes and
amenities. * More pathways and walking/wheelchair routes throughout the town (this would greatly
improve the Town Centre and tourism aspects) * Improved communication with the airport. Other
proposals are lower priority. Other
I feel that a major improvement for this town would be the introduction of a number of large
enough cycle ways that were positioned so that they could effectively get a significant amount of
cars off the roads. They need to be built so that residents would seriously consider using them as an
alternative to short journeys into town or around the edge of town. i.e. from the west to the souththru the Pavilions, or from the west to the north- avoiding the bottleneck of the hospital/ west
Page 97
park/Sainsbury's roundabouts. Better pavements for school children to get more cars off the roads.
Smaller, cheaper, greener, more frequent buses for the same.
I have a free bus pass due to my age, and the buses are very useful to me getting into town for
shopping & surgery visits as I have never driven a car.
I have already done a survey on transport. I have sent emails stating how much I appreciate the
tracking service on the buses. At the moment it is hit and miss whether it is working or not and many
of the buses now do not have them installed which is a pain when you wait an hour for one which
does not turn up like I experienced last night.
I hope we are objecting to the high speed Rail link that will put Macclesfield on a side branch for
London trains and mean we have to go to Wilmslow instead. In my view this is one of the things that
make Macclesfield very attractive to commuters in London and Manchester. The bus system is
terrible I have tried to use public transport to work and other areas but due to the late start/early
stopping of buses and routes that only go to the bus station and out, it is not practicable so I end up
driving all the time or getting a taxi. Parking at the hospital is impossible for able bodied people,
never mind those with disabilities.
I particularly agree that cycle links to the surrounding area and town centre should be supported and
encouraged.
I think more people would use the town centre if parking charges were not so exorbitant, there
seems to be much more footfall and use of car parks on for example the treacle market Sundays
than on Saturdays.
I thought that First Railways were going to improve the Railway Station.
I would welcome any action that makes cycling safer
I would especially like cycling routes and parking to be improved
I would like more dedicated pedestrian/cycling paths e.g. to Alderfly Edge Woods
I would like to see a commitment to developing new routes for cyclists and walkers only (along the
lines of the Middlewood Way) to make walking and cycling safer and pleasanter.
I would welcome improvements to the railway station and think this and improvements to cycle
ways through the town should be explored before road developments. Cycle ways should reflect the
needs of cyclists rather than motorists if cycling is to become an alternative means of transport. This
includes not expecting cyclists to have to dismount at road junctions, roundabouts etc. We also need
to 'reclaim' the pavements from parked vehicles to improve the lot of pedestrians. To this end, I
would welcome an increase in the number of traffic wardens, pavement cleaners and dog wardens
and a leaflet drop encouraging people to use their drives.
railway station to the town centre it is in/near the town centre - just put up some decent signs!
If the council really wants to attack our Green belt land and the developers really want to commit to
local development would it not be a better idea to fully open up the road links and make a proper
ring road as they do in Europe. This could be done by widening the arc of the road to bring it out
near to Monks Heath which would then meet up with the A34 and Alderley Edge bypass and solve
the problem of accidents around Birtles bends on the A537. As a resident living on Chelford Road
(A537) and witnessing many accidents (some very serious) along the stretch which comes within the
boundaries of Henbury, I strongly object to any road coming out on the town Centre side of the Cock
Inn pub, as in my view this would be a potentially fatal decision due to the extra volume of traffic
using a built up area and the temptation of drivers to exceed the speed limit more so than they do
now after coming off a faster, clearer road.
If the land is built on between Hurdsfield and Buxton Road, there would be a huge increase in traffic
on both Hurdsfield and Buxton Road - these are already very busy and very dangerous roads. I have
lived in this area all my life. I walk up and down Buxton Road on a daily basis and have lived on
Page 98
Buxton Road for over 30 years - the traffic is horrendous. How would the increase in traffic affect the
people who live in this area? There would also be an increase in traffic around both Puss Bank and
the King's School - problems already exist without adding to them. There is a one-way traffic system
round from Barracks Lane & up Cottage Lane onto Buxton Road which must be up to capacity traffic
wise.
If the population is increasing by about 4% why do we need 24% more households. The stats are a
bit suspect.
I'm not sure about the way the new road plans will enhance the town, I would like more info about
this
Improve cycle ways/lanes.
Improved road system is key to Macclesfield prosperity
Improvement of facilities at the bus station
Improvements to transport should not be at the cost of the beautiful greenbelt countryside which
makes Macclesfield the rural town that it is.
In theory. However by its attitude to public transport, CEC, alone among authorities in the NW, in
dismantling bus services and promoting car use.
It is ridiculous that, considering Macclesfield's proximity to the Manchester Airport, there is no direct
link between the two. The least that is required is a coach shuttle service.
It needs improving for sure, but it also need courageous decision about car vs. other forms of
transport. When it comes to getting into Town we need more people on the buses. At the moment
for two people to go into town on a return ticket costs nearly as much as to get a taxi. Plus the cycle
routes are terrible - they basically involve cycling on the pavement or they have cars parked in them.
We need to make it easy for cars to get round the town, but also to give foot and cycle users more
priority than they currently have.
It should not be forgotten that much of the catchment is rural although the current provision of
buses into country areas is poor. Not everyone drives and if evening visits are to be encouraged this
needs to be improved.
Keep encouraging people to use public transport - if it was cheaper it would encourage people to use
them more! We'd use it more if it was.
Links to the airport and M6 are adequate no need for any improved link to south Manchester improved rail link or link to the Manchester tram system would be more in line with sustainability
objective. If we are serious about cycling as a means of transport and not just an occasional leisure
activity, it will need separate cycle ways to neighbouring towns - motor traffic is too dangerous for
cyclists - Holland provides a good example
Macclesfield has a lot of bottlenecks at the moment and it gets very busy near the town centre.
Improvements to the road network would be extremely welcome especially the link road between
Lyme green business park and Congleton road
Macclesfield has excellent rail links and many well provided bus routes but parts of the town do
suffer from lack of good transport facilities - i.e. those parts off Buxton Road which are served by the
Forest Cottage and Buxton bus - both of which only run once an hour and within minutes of each
other meaning there is only an hourly bus service.
Macclesfield has very poor road links. Most of the commuter transport comes from the north of the
town. The main artery for access is either via Prestbury village or the A523. Both are heavily flawed
when it comes to handling large volumes of traffic. Bonis Hall lane is a nightmare and the section
from those traffic lights to the commencement of the silk road is non business friendly (especially
when the cows cross the road) There is little or no point investing in a town centre when it’s easier
to commute to the shopping facilities on the A34. Train access is also poor. its costly and irregular.
Macclesfield missed its opportunity years ago to build a ring road to avoid the congestion which we
now have. Churchill Way and the Silk Road do not help.
Maintenance and improvement of services to rural areas is critical.
Page 99
Make walking and cycling more attractive by enforcing speed limits. We can have a pleasant walk
into town down Westminster Road, but too many motorists are driving down this road at 40-50 mph
and spoiling the experience.
More cycle lanes, better links from Macc to the rest of Cheshire + S Manchester
More cycle paths
More investment is required to help traffic flow more easily, reducing bottlenecks. For example why
can't Monks Heath Crossroads be a roundabout! I love Poynton Shared Space, I think that has been a
real success for Cheshire East and is a great example of fresh innovative thinking in access and
transport.
More public transport and pedestrian awareness. Pedestrian access from the town to the canal and
Tegg’s Nose a proper off road path here would be a real leisure asset.
More thought should be given to access. Kids Allowed should not come out at the roundabout. Very
dangerous to come out of especially with young children in the cars.
More town centre parking is not needed due to the lack of amenities within the centre itself.
Must improve transport links especially to the key areas such as leisure, shopping and employment
Natural England supports aims in Objective 4. The commitment to improvements of the railway
station and the planned road infrastructure will improve connectivity around the town and may lead
to better uptake of more sustainable transport modes. Natural England particularly supports the
ambition to develop high quality pedestrian and cycle links to improve the access to the countryside
and other open spaces. It should be noted that these links will extend from the town centre.
Need better bus service - eves and pm. What about transport for disabled people?
Need to make concrete proposals for improvements particularly for pedestrians
Need to provide much better facilities for cyclists - dedicated cycle paths - if people could cycle
safely off road, more people would do it. Improvements need to be made to the road infrastructure
to remove bottlenecks in the town. Car parking facilities in the town centre need to be improved.
Need to improve the integration of bus, rail, car and cycles - try and get people from using cars for
long journeys
New connective road would ease town traffic congestion
New roads cutting through the countryside surely aren't required. Buses are already being cut from
outlying villages, so don't allow for commuters to stay after work or to even come into the area to
work outside office hours. Not all businesses are 9 to 5, Monday to Friday. If you want to come to
the new cinema from Bollington that won't be possible by bus after 5.30pm soon !!
No mention of developing the canal access to the town. This is a big missed opportunity. The canal
moorings for visitors in Macclesfield are a disgrace and losing the town trade from canal users.
Compare with fine facilities and welcome to canal users at towns such as Ellesmere, Kidderminster
and Stone.
No point in Macc link road without connection to Chelford Road. Henbury just increase pressure on
Oxford Rd. Improve public transport e.g. buses including evening weekend and cycle routes, priority
over cars.
None existent.
Not at the cost of green belt
Not clear how Macclesfield is going to improve station, roads, transport links etc - not within
Macclesfield control
Objective 4 - expand: to and from the town (not just around)
Objective Access and Transport the objectives are unexceptional though quite what improvements
to the station should be sought is not clear. Again the strategy refers to Macclesfield South as
though it is a given allocation yet the traffic justification for the link road is not set out. Other
improvements are hinted at yet there is no specific information against which to test the strategy.
With regard to public transport and links to the town centre from the station quite what is the
Page 100
problem which has not been addressed by past improvements? All bus services into Macclesfield
pass within 100m of the station and town centre - how will closer integration be secured and what
does the council have in mind ? Surely it is only careful site planning to allow penetration by buses
which will secure increased usage and better integration with non-car modes. It is odd that the
strategy makes no mention of other key elements of transport planning which have been applied
over several decades namely, vehicle emission reductions and reducing the need to travel by more
sustainable land allocations and integration of employment and housing growth (see also Objective
1 above for a local example). Finally, out of centre and edge of centre retail growth not only harms
the town centre but reduces the ability of public transport to thrive.
Objectives are long standing Strategy - a mix of proposals and aspirations with no indication of
forward or strategic thinking
Objectives fine 1) Macc South are not foregone conclusion 3) And culture 4) A funicular? Facetious!
5) Yes! And to the hospital 8) How? Improved road to Poynton/Bramhall and then the bypass
continuation? 9) Slightly too expensive!
ok
Other than the South Macclesfield Link Road, there is nothing to disagree with.
Our road system is a joke-whoever thought of building a bypass ending in the middle of the town!
Our roads are dangerous enough without adding more to them
Over this time period, the impact of HS2 also needs to be considered. It is likely that this will bypass
Macclesfield, reducing its connectivity to London in particular.
Pedestrian access is currently poor to some central areas (and is not helped by dog excrement on
many streets: Bond Street is an example). Although I am a keen and experienced cyclist, I regard
cycling into the centre of Macclesfield as unduly dangerous. Car parking is currently inconvenient
and very expensive: it encourages those who might otherwise shop in the town centre to use out-oftown alternatives.
Pedestrian links between the railway station and bus station / town centre are long overdue, a
bridge would be ideal.
Pretty good at present
Priority need to improve links to airport - roads, bus or train. A fast bus station railway station link
would be useful, but I am not sue how it can be done within a reasonable budget.
Protect bus service please
Public transport, walking and cycling routes should be prioritized to reduce dependency and
requirement for new road building. The transport link to the airport should be by public transport,
preferably train, rather than new roads.
Railway station to town centre? Are you thinking Hong Kong escalators? Shuttle bus taking
roundabout way to the market place?
Road access to the M6 and Manchester airport is particularly important
Road access to the M6 is vital to attract day visitors as is quality rights of way to give people to
opportunity to explore Macclesfield's doorstep. Improving the train station along with its role in
directing visitors into the town is vital as without knowledge of what is there visitors will not be
encouraged to get off and explore
Road and rail transport not cycling are key to our business success The easing of the traffic situation
would be undermined by new housing
Rush hour in Macc is incredibly quiet compared to other parts of the country. Look to improve traffic
flow with subtle changes - two lanes at roundabouts, clearly signed left filters, speed cameras, etc rather than to carve chunks of the countryside up to put in new roads. Introduce smaller minibuses
on a more frequent time table between busy routes at subsidised prices if you want to get people
off the roads in their cars. The rail links are already good but the station could do with a face lift and
Page 101
it could be used to promote tourism - if it looks smarter, people may be interested in visiting another
time.
I don't believe for one minute that public transport links will be improved, it just reads like a 'wish
list' with nothing on how it would be achieved (without costing us a fortune). And again, improving
pedestrian access is a laudable aim but not at the expense of commuters e.g. the proposed changes
to Churchill Way will lead to gridlock and other routes being used as rat-runs. Improved access to the
Leisure Centre (aka Prestbury Leisure Centre) - when it was built those of us who lived on the other
side of town were promised regular (cheap) transport. It's now almost impossible to get there
without a car and bus fares (if one's running) are extortionate. I suggest that regular free shuttle
buses would be viable, green, and perhaps even be part of the Olympic legacy
Seems to me very limited in connection with the extra population alluded to. The town seems to me
to be severely constrained by the topography and geography.
should achieve good (multi-modal) connections with the 'rest of the world', excellent public
transport and no-car options within the town (not just the very centre) + extend pedestrianised
areas
Should be more emphasis on providing intelligent parking solutions using technology to deliver:- 1
Active signage on Town centre approaches 2 Payment for parking time used only encouraging
shoppers to leave when they have finished shopping rather than filling in until the end of the parking
period.
Some areas of traffic congestion are well above what you would expect. Clearing up these
bottlenecks by improving other routes/improving public transport would see a significant
improvement in the town.
Some improvements need to be made. More people would walk to school for instance if the speed
limits were restricted on school routes. It’s too dangerous for most children to walk to school for
fear of being hit by fast moving cars. More people would choose public transport if it were a better
system, cheaper prices and incentives.
Sounds fine but what is the budget for this? Changes to car park charges to bring business into town.
make parking free on a Saturday for an hour
south west link road is only an excuse to build within it
Strategy point no.3 most important. There must be a way to provide free or favourable parking in
conjunction with the retailers e.g. parking fee returned on spend in Town Centre shops. The fees
deter shoppers from coming to Macclesfield & the same will apply whatever the town's retail
offering in the future. People in general would prefer to shop at places with free parking such as The
Trafford Centre rather than pay to shop here.
Strategy should include a review of bus services in the town, identifying gaps and duplications in
routes, a renumbering of the routes to present inexperienced users with a readily intelligible
network. There should be a requirement that bus routes subsidised by CEC linking Macclesfield to
adjoining towns, should offer low fares between Macc town centre and town boundary to
encourage residents of the suburbs to use these services to go into the centre. (for example the fare
from the centre to the top of Buxton Road should be less than £2.50) Public Transport to the airport
exists, but it is not marketed as such. It is an illustration of how two bus companies are not joining
together to benefit the community (or themselves), and CEC involvement is needed. Take the bus
from Macclesfield to Manchester Airport for £5.50 in 1 hr 15mins. From Macclesfield, take the Arriva
North West 130 bus to Bank Square Wilmslow, and Swans Travel No 200 takes you from there to the
Airport Bus / Rail Station . This link should be promoted and frequency increased as an alternative to
investment in road links to the airport. Any improvement to trunk routes SMLR and SEMMS should
only be supported after an assessment of traffic modelling, especially considering North/ South
traffic through the town. It would be easy to make this bottleneck (and associated poor air quality)
worse, and it is a difficult route to improve.
Strongly agree with public transport aspect. Would need more detail on roads
Page 102
Super wish list
Support objectives to deliver new road infrastructure that improves connectivity around the town
and to ease traffic congestion. South West Macclesfield link road should be included in the Access
and Transport bullet points. It is important that the objectives and strategy are deliverable strategy
includes improve road access to M6 motorway but it is not clear how this could be achieved in
practice or viably. The Council is urged to ensure that any measures which are carried forward into
the Draft meet National Policy guidance.
Sustainability and the importance of walking and cycling and therefore the proximity of new housing
to the town centre are majorly important. The road proposals are piecemeal-they deal with only half
the town -should not the proposed road be continued from Chelford Rd northerly and easterly to
join into the A523 somewhere between Macclesfield and Prestbury-thereby giving a complete ring
road system? The proposed new road from A523-A536 can be provided in isolation because it should
not give too much traffic redistribution because it simply replaces Moss la. It use of the eastern
portion of Moss lane is totally unsatisfactory as it currently stands-the redevelopment of the football
ground site would be necessary to create a reasonable junction with the A523 and that could be
designed to open up the potential housing site opposite the football ground. The section Congleton
Rd-Chelford rd needs to be constructed in one phase or started from Chelford rd otherwise the
traffic situation at Broken cross will become problematic.
SW Link Road, YES. Improvement of several roads and junctions, yes. Above all, increase cheap and
easy parking in or near the town centre.
The A523 must be improve from the end of the existing Silk Road as far as Poynton, to link up with
other proposed road developments, e.g. the Manchester Airport Link Road. There was a plan some
years ago for the A523 to be re routed from the end of the Silk Road, behind the Butley Ash pub.
With sensitive planning this could be done for the benefit of local residents and the motoring public.
The access to site c is on a very quiet road, Abby road, the volume of traffic will totally destroy the
community.
The aim is good, but your record over the last three decades has WORSENED the situation: be very
clear: bus and rail services ARE NOT INTEGRATED AT PRESENT and the new bus station has made
matters far worse. The bus station is also a second grade development with very limited facilities.
Whilst the station does need improving, the actual services are in far more need of improvement
than the station. We really should have a metro style service to Manchester and far better rail
connections to the West of the county
The bypass should go all the way from the A537 to the A523 and not halfway round to the A536. It
should be dual carriageway but the southern part of the Silk Road would also need improving
otherwise the congestion will just be moved to the end of the new bypass.
The complete S.W. relief road should be prioritised, from London Road to Chelford Road
The council cannot even maintain the roads we have in and around the town, two years ago the
snow and ice saw a decline in the surface of many of the road; two years later the council has not
done anything to mend these roads, many of them still bearing the brunt of the council inability to
maintain them. The roads are a joke in and around Macclesfield already so to propose a new town
centre and new housing is ludicrous, how will folks come to this town on already ruined roads.. You
have got to be joking the roads cannot even cope with traffic we have already from the snow two
years ago, so to think that you the council can provide anything to represent an improvement is
ridiculous.
The creation of the South Macclesfield Link Road is essential. It will create a natural boundary
between residential and other uses without impinging on the green belt. With careful consideration
pedestrian and cycle routes could be created to link the town centre with open countryside. Current
bad neighbour uses could relocate, traffic issues on Moss Lane and Park Lane would be alleviated to
provide a better environment for a lot of residents.
The current parking provision simply needs improving but not by way of any more multi storey car
parks. They are out moded, ugly and unnecessary. Costs of car parking need to be addressed. More
Page 103
people would use public transport if it was more regular, made more accessible and made more
popular. What about Park and Ride schemes? Four car parks placed around the town with regular
buses into the centre? No need for any more multi storeys! Tidy up existing ones, resurface, trees,
etc.
The current roads need to be fully maintained/repairing before new roads are built and a sustained
programme of drain cleaning maintained to keep them from flooding.
The document again states that access to transport will be enhanced, but by increasing the distance
of some homes from the town centre this can only mean that either more buses are needed or more
likely private car ownership will increase. This is especially likely in light of bus route cuts so it makes
little sense in promising something that the Council knows they are unable to deliver. New road
infrastructure has been proven not to improve traffic congestion, but merely open up more land for
future development, which inevitably increases traffic in that area. Although providing ring roads
around towns is sometimes necessary to alleviate traffic flow travelling across a town, it has a
detrimental effect as stated previously especially when the ring road only connects one quadrant of
the circle as the proposals for the South Macclesfield Link Road does. If built this will almost certainly
be used for additional suburban sprawl development. The Council has also never made any effort to
improve the train station which being on the West Coast Mainline to Manchester is a primary
gateway to the town.
The key to prosperity lies in high speed links to the M6 and to Manchester Airport
The less land taken up with new/widening roads the better
The link road is an essential part of the towns future, it has to be looked at as a way of getting
people into the town rather than getting out. Parking is a major deterrent to people coming in to
town - encouraging further out of town shopping and thus loss of trade
The link road should be scrapped as it will cause more problems that it will solve. SEMMS should be
scrapped as well as it is not needed. Macclesfield occupies an enviable position, good links to enable
those people and businesses that are here to enjoy the quality of life that it offers. Better links
increase the pressure on expansion and threaten to spoil the very thing that makes it so attractive.
Improve public transport, especially access to the leisure centre.
The main objective should certainly be to ease traffic congestion.
The new rail provider may help in investing in a clean and bright station with better facilities. Bus
transport is good. Car parking needs a revue, with car parks offering 'first hour free' in some
locations to encourage shoppers back into the town as opposed to out of town where parking is
free. Parking charges could be refunded by a number of retailers who could subscribe to a 'free
parking' scheme. 'Make it Macclesfield' cards could include a code for an hour's fee parking?
The objective and strategy do not include any statement to provide reassurance that the green
environment will be taken into account or protected.
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. To achieve modal shift
by actively promoting all public transport and encouraging convenient and affordable sustainable
transport choices through improved integration of bus and rail travel and through improved walking
and cycling routes and facilities To increase rail passenger numbers, promote rail as a viable
alternative to the car and deliver better access to Macclesfield Railway Station as well as ensuring
the provision of significant improvements to the station itself and the surrounding public realm To
consult all communities in and around Macclesfield on the need for new road infrastructure, having
provided them with adequate information to make informed responses ¢ To reduce congestion on
those parts of the highway network that have been shown by the evidence base to be congested
through a range of measures which include sustainable modes of travel and smart choices Strategy:
Access and Transport Subject to the South Macclesfield Development Area - as identified in saved
policies from the Macclesfield Borough Plan - going ahead, deliver access roads into the site Improve
and create new pedestrian and cycle links into and across the town centre and make plentiful
provision of secure cycle parking stands Provide town centre car parking (with electric vehicle
charging infrastructure) and cycle parking, to support the role of Macclesfield as a destination for
Page 104
shopping, employment, leisure and tourism Radically improve the integration of public transport in
the town, including links from the railway station to the town centre, and ensure wide availability of
real-time information Maintain and strive to improve the existing level of bus and rail services, and
strive to improve accessibility to the leisure centre Improve accessibility to and within the town for
all members of society Develop high quality pedestrian and cycle links networks (including Quiet
Lanes and Greenways) to improve access to the countryside and to link parks and open spaces
Improve public transport links to Manchester Support those highway improvements for which the
case is soundly made [Footnote to Transport Objectives & Strategy: It is unclear how the proposed
strategy bullet point improve road access to the M6 motorway relates to any of the access &
transport objectives. A key objective is to reduce congestion. If this is genuinely held, a key strategy
should be to achieve modal shift and not to build more highway infrastructure - which would induce
more traffic. Macc2020 were initially perplexed by the inclusion in the draft strategy of the resolve
to improve road access to the motorway, especially in view of the acknowledgement in the foreword
by the CEC portfolio holder of the need to move to a low carbon future. However, the matter has
since clarified as a result of the inclusion in the final version of the Congleton Town Strategy of a new
(and extensive) Congleton Northern Link Road, which would make for a faster connection between
Macclesfield and the M6 motorway. Macc 2020 do not support this new road proposal. The case has
now been proven by SACTRA (the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) in their
report Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic and by other agencies, and accepted by
government - that providing more highway capacity leads to more traffic movements. More traffic
causes more greenhouse gas emissions (NB A quarter of carbon emissions come from transport).
CEC need to tailor their policy to the evidence that exists].
The Objectives and Strategy are great, HOWEVER, I don't see how they will fit with the plans to build
3500 houses. Adding developments here and there around Macclesfield will make access and
transport on our already busy roads worse.
The objectives can hardly be disagreed with - 'motherhood and apple pie'! - but the implementation
is the issue. The devil will be in the detail which is not clear at this point
The option (Leek Road - Canal) does not take the traffic flows onto Bullocks Lane or Leek Road and
safety into account.
the planned south road should go from London road over Congleton road and instead of stopping at
Chelford road should carry on through Prestbury and join up with the silk road, effectively creating a
full ring road
The present roads are a disgrace. Urgent action
The proposals rely on road links what about a rail-based solution e.g. rail station 2m south of town
The proposed developments will require the building of additional feeder roads that will have a
detrimental effect on wider neighbouring communities as well as on the Green Belt. No analysis is
presented in the consultation paper as to the wider impact of additional road networks - their need
and usage. Why has this not been done?
The proposed link road would help relieve town centre congestion.
The proposed South Macclesfield Link Road would cut across the Green Belt and should not be built.
The queues of traffic on all major routes into and out of the town especially at "rush hour" suggest
the need to improve the transport infrastructure before increasing the housing stock
The roads and streets of Macclesfield have been a bit of a hotch potch since the previous
redevelopment. They are good in parts. But certain areas aren't: viz access to the railway station by
car is limited by the pedestrian zones, one way streets and the 4 way traffic lights at the bottom of
Buxton Hill. Greater priority must be given to the car so that traffic bottlenecks and jams such as this
are avoided and easy access to key places are given priority. The proposal to increase the number of
Page 105
houses to the west of Macclesfield would put great pressure on the existing rural lanes which are
designed for rural traffic of the 1950's. Improving the lanes to meet the existing demand would
reduce the charm of this area
The S Macc link Road would be a good improvement. The appearance of the approach to the town
from Leek is dire. As most of the pubs and shops are closed can we not knock it down and start
again? The Middlewood way cycle track is good. Other than that , painting white lines at the sides of
the road to form 'cycle lanes' is a waste of time- they stop whenever the road situation makes them
inconvenient and motorists just use them to park in-when they're not parking on the pavement.. We
need good routes not politically correct fudges. Don’t bother with 'cycle stands' - I can easily use a
tree.
The Society strongly objects to the development of the proposed road between Congleton Road and
the A537. This is covered in more detail later in this response.
The South Macc Link Road is out dated and has been for a lot of years. It was proven a long time ago
that it was not needed. This is simply a red herring to allow the road to be built to service 3,000
houses that are not needed and not wanted. The way to improve traffic flow on these routes is to
modify many of the junctions; Moss Lane to Congleton Road - If I wanted to spoil the flow of traffic,
then this is the layout I would have chosen. Who in their right mind thought that one up? Silk Road
to London Road - This is a joke across Cheshire; a ring-road that goes through the town and ends at
what was already a bottle neck. London Road to Byron's Lane - Make this a round-a-bout and most
of the traffic flow is restored. Park Lane to Congleton Road - Weeks of rework to achieve nothing.
Did the planner actually study any of the flow at that junction? Come from Ivy lane and try going
down Park Lane when someone in front of you wants to turn right. The upshot is there are too many
cars on Macclesfield roads. The problem that should be addressed is not how we can accommodate
them, but how we can reduce them. Squeezing another 3,500 homes into Macclesfield will do
nothing to help this situation. Public transport must be increased in a way that entices people to use
it. At present a bus ride from Bollinbarn to Chestergate is £2.60, that's a ONE mile journey! Is it any
wonder that the busses are under-utilised? Schools should be encouraged to use school busses to
reduce the effect of 'the school run'. Transport links to the airport are nonexistent. There are a lot of
people in Macclesfield who work at the airport; given the fact that parking, both staff and passenger,
is at a premium, there is no regular public transport to get there.
The South Macclesfield Link Road has already been subject to a planning enquiry and rejected. It is
insulting to resurrect this again. This road would damage the environment.
The South Macclesfield Link Road should be built as soon as possible to help ease congestion.
The south west link road is entirely unnecessary. The road and its attendant development will blight
the area, spoil and destroy Macclesfield's countryside and increase ugly sprawl to the town.
The strategy proposed is supported by to this should be added a further point relating to
investigation and provision of new road construction in conjunction with development proposals
that would have a beneficial impact on existing areas of traffic congestion within the town.
The town badly needs to ease traffic congestion with a joined up road policy.
The town can only benefit from developments designed to improve access.
The town centre road system needs reorganising
The town desperately needs dedicated cycling routes. If people were to feel safer far more people
Would be happy to cycle, which would relieve pressure on the roads. Is there the possibility to use
(split) some of the pavements to accommodate cycling (as in a few places in Upton Priory)?
The transport proposals continue to ignore pedestrians and cyclist.
There are needs to control the congestion in the town centre but this is not a new situation. Since
the Silk Road was established there has always been a potential bottleneck to the South but the link
to the West of the town was not thought fit for purpose a number of years ago and the plans were
shelved. More appropriate would be the development of a one way system embracing Sunderland
Street, Park Street, Cumberland Street, and Hibel Road with access to town centre properties
Page 106
restricted especially to commercial vehicles.
There is a definite need for improved cycle routes; at present most roads into the town centre are
very dangerous for cyclists due to the lack of cycle lanes. Buses need to run later - we would use the
bus much more often if the last service from our area was later than 6 pm. As realistically most
people would still drive into the town centre, parking needs to be cheaper to encourage more
shoppers to Macc rather than surrounding towns where it is generally much cheaper to park!
There is a need to link the Metro from Manchester to Macclesfield, to reduce cars & emissions from
daily commuters
There is no mention of taxis. We need sufficient taxi stands at key points (especially the station),
together with adequate provision for taxis to be held in reserve near the stands. They should NOT be
charged full parking rate. The number of taxis licensed should be consistent with the demand for the
taxi service and the councils willingness to provide parking and standing spaces for them. I am not
convinced that anything has changed since 1995 when a proposal to join the A536 (Congleton Road
around Gawsworth) and the A537 (Chelford Road) around the Cock Inn area was rejected on appeal.
There is no requirement for extra roads in Macclesfield, the silk road is a prime example where a
new road has been created for one purpose only and that is to service the Tytherington business
park, a development which is partially derelict and has allowed the developer access to change plans
and build housing.
There is no need for improved roads “ there is a need to maintain those that exist!
There is one Air Quality Management Area within the town, however a number of other areas have
breached the objective and are undergoing a more detailed assessment to determine if there is a
requirement to declare further Air Quality Management Areas. Any development which is likely to
significantly increase traffic in the town, or change traffic patterns around the town is likely to
exacerbate this problem. We would therefore look for policies and strategies which encourage and
incentivise low carbon transport options and reduce reliance on the private car. Development
should be encouraged which does not adversely affect local air quality by virtue of direct or indirect
emissions by encouraging development which reduces the need for travel, or incentivises low
carbon transport modes Encourage and incentivise the use of low carbon transport options within,
and around the town. Improve Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in the Town
There is significant concern in relation to Roads and Transport how country lanes in the Parish were
used by car drivers issue of speeding on lanes and London Road.
There's not enough focus on improving the roads around the town centre and to consider more
pedestrian access / crossing is unbelievable, given the log jam around Macclesfield due in particular
to the crossings near Sainsbury’s. Pedestrians are given too high a priority and Car Drivers pay more
tax, so should get a better service.
This is imperative to get bypass built and extension to Silk Rd via London Rd.
This town has been cut up by two main roads, the Silk Road and Churchill Way making access into
the centre very difficult. Access for pedestrians is not easy and should be improved. The railway
station is ugly and not befitting a town of this size. When you think what the old Central Station
looked like, it should have been improved and preserved. Car parking in the town is far too
expensive and we would attract far more shoppers if there were concessions at certain times.
Parking restrictions on street also make it difficult for people working in the town.
To deliver new road infrastructure that improves connectivity around the town, adds to the
sentence and in the areas around the town where required for the infrastructure for housing
development, and/or to ease traffic congestion.
To keep encourage bus use, it seems sensible to maintain / enhance the quality of the bus station. It
feels run down. Also, buses leaving the bus station seem to pose a hazard at the junction with Mill
Lane - this should be redesigned to handle the vehicles more safely or be re-routed. The aim to
improve pedestrian access to town is sensible. The Middlewood way feels run down near the town /
Tesco’s. Pedestrian access to both Tesco’s and Sainsbury's is poor. There are several areas (near Park
Page 107
Lane roundabout, near Sainsbury's roundabout, near Spire Hospital roundabout, Buxton Road near
Fence Avenue) where pedestrians, including school children, have difficulty crossing roads. Traffic
movement in rush hour is terrible, particularly in the west, and this will impact on attractiveness to
business investment. Work to improve this should be a priority.
Too much emphasis on road building, and not enough on public transport. It is a difficult place to
operate buses commercially, not helped by a total lack of any bus priorities. Closing the office in the
bus station was not a good idea, I believe Arriva offered to run if for free. I note that Cheshire East is
in the process of withdrawing support to many bus services. Obviously the network needs to keep
up with demand, but there is no attempt by Council nor operators to market the services. Just a cuts
agenda, so negative.
Town will only become attractive for shopping by the introduction of free parking. The train service
needs to be improved
Traffic congestion is one of the biggest problems currently facing the town. The location of the
Sainsbury’s supermarket does not help, but I doubt if Sainsbury’s would move. The dual-lane then
single-lane nature of the A523 does not provide an effective North <-> South bypass. The South
Macclesfield Link Road would help, especially if coupled with the South-West Link Road to provide a
South <-> West bypass which would reduce traffic coming past the Flowerpot pub. But while I
appreciate the advantage of a South-West Link Road going through the green belt, I don't necessarily
support the related plan to develop around 3000 dwellings in the same green belt area.
Transport and road access desperately needs improving around Macclesfield - the town can't cope
now, so what chance with extra businesses and housing?
Transport to and from the proposed South Macclesfield Development area will be essential.
Transport will be one of the key areas in the new Strategy. The emphasis should be on the hierarchy
of: walking - cycling - public transport - private transport. The town sits at the heart of a rural
hinterland, and cars will always be an important part of the mix, however the town is hostage to
poor transport systems, with road vehicles making some parts of Macclesfield very unpleasant. We
need a much more ambitious strategy that is linked to Environment and Community Facilities.
Transport, parking and all associated topics are a real bugbear in the Town, and MUST be a priority
in any development, there can be no other town in the country that has its 2 by-passes going right
through the middle of the town! We need to ease congestion in the streets of, and across, the town,
improve access to the airport (to aid the attractiveness for businesses), sort out the parking (so that
people can get into the town), and make it clear to Tesco that they cannot bully the Council into
submission, and that they must contribute FULLY to the Town Centre development. There was a
letter in the Macc Express a couple of months ago suggesting that Tesco could fund a "walkway"
from their store into the Town Centre - a brilliant idea that would demonstrate partnership, allow
people to use (and park at!) Tesco, but also facilitate the ability for them to move onto the Town
Centre easily. The fact that Tesco are soon to open a "hand car wash" service in direct competition
to a local private facility right next door, does not fill me with great hope that they will suddenly
become the "Great Altruists", but one lives in hope!
Turning Churchill way into a pedestrian death trap a LA Wilson Bowden should not be a part.
Very little mention of cars - it seems to imply that we will all be walking and cycling - I don't believe
that people will give up their cars. The roads in Macclesfield are already badly congested so without
major changes to the road network it's difficult to see how Macclesfield will cope with another 47000 vehicles based on the number of new houses planned.
Vital!
We do not need a big multi-storey car park- it will look awful and completely ruin the look of the
area.
We need affordable town centre parking where the charges encourage people to visit and shop in
town rather than go to the Trafford Centre or Handforth Dean. At present parking charges are a
common cause of complaint both with visitors and business owners.
Page 108
We support the improvement to public transport and the improvement to walking and cycling
routes for everyday journeys. We would like to see added the following: - A walking/cycling route
network plan for the town produced to guide future planning - Area wide travel planning project to
reduce car use to schools - Monitoring and reduction in carbon emissions and energy consumption
from local transport
We want to get on our bikes, get fit and lose weight, and it would be wonderful to be able to do this
more safely.
What does 'improved integration of bus and rail travel' really mean? Can't see the council have much
control over when the trains stop. Signposting between the bus and rail stations would be useful for
visitors but surely that can just be done without being part of a vision? Agree that the town
absolutely needs car parking. But it needs it at the top of the town, exactly where it is at the
moment, rather than at the bottom as proposed by the Wilson Bowden development. Parking needs
to be close to where people do heavy shopping i.e. the food shops. If shoppers can't wheel trolleys
from shop to car park they will not come to the town centre. As a resident of Park Lane I can see the
advantages of a southern link road. But if this getting this means developing Danes Moss, that might
be too high a price for the town to pay. We see in the Macc Express this week that the Bollington
bus service is threatened with closure. This makes a nonsense of any council promises to improve
access for all - if private companies withdraw services, what can the council do?
While I agree that the road network in Macclesfield is far from perfect I have concerns that
developing the South Macc Link Road Will not really solve the problems. Traffic from the north will
still back up to the Tesco’s roundabout. That from the east will be unaffected. The main
improvement will be for traffic travelling from Leek to Knutsford - which I suspect is fairly limited. I
have concerns that there will be "development creep" along the new road which will impact further
on the greenbelt (particularly from site I on the plans) in a way similar to the developments along
the Wilmslow bypass. When I moved to Macclesfield 15 years ago this road went through open
countryside for most of its length - now it is developed pretty much all the way along, with housing
estates and no local facilities so everyone has to drive - and the new road is full of cars already. I
agree with the need for high-quality pedestrian and cycle links - though as a regular cyclists the first
priority should be ensuring the cycle lanes we do have are suitable. The ones by Broken Cross are
poorly labelled, full of potholes and generally ignored by car drivers. The Middlewood way on the
other hand is a good e.g. of what can be done. Whatever happens please don't go down the same
lines as Poynton - the "no priority" section is a fatal accident waiting to happen. I do agree that the
railway station and surrounds is tired and needs updating - for many people the approach from the
North on train or silk road is the first impression - It really isn't the best first view of Macclesfield and
could be much improved. I fail to see how anything mentioned will improve links to either
Manchester Airport or theM6.
While rail access to the town is good (except from the Airport), road access is generally poor.
Whilst agreeing that transport links in the town must be improved the council’s planning record in
this area does not stand up to close scrutiny (heavily congested Silk Road, Bus Station location away
from Railway Station).
Whilst I support the South Macclesfield Link Road, this does not reduce the current congestion on
the North side of the town. Consideration should be given to providing an effective by pass/ring road
to the town centre.
Whilst reducing traffic congestion would be an improvement, building new roads is not always the
answer. How many new bus services, cycle paths etc could be put in place for the cost of one new
road ? - quite a few. Would 3500 new homes not increase traffic congestion ?
Whirley Road despite speed humps becomes a rat race for car users at peak times going far too fast.
Recent new builds meant hgv's are frequent on a weight restricted road.
Whole town centre should be pedestrianised.
WHY CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM BY BIGGER, WIDER AND BUSIER ROADS
Why only strive to improve public transport? It sounds like you have given up before you start.
Page 109
Improve access to M6: does this mean all the way to North and South? There is no point in just
improving within Macclesfield.
with the exception of road works the towns roads are not congested and need no further
improvement
With the number of public transport cuts and the excessive car parking charges coupled with
dreadful road access it is unlikely that the centre of Macclesfield will attract shoppers.
Work out how to connect bus services to out of town facilities better/cheaper parking for trains.
Page 110
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Community Facilities
Do you agree or disagree with the Community Facilities Objectives and Strategy as set out
in the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy?
• Strongly Agree (22.4%); Agree (43.5%); Neither Agree or Disagree (25%); Disagree (4%);
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
A cinema complex and more facilities for young people are vital
A purpose-built theatre/concert hall/entertainment venue and a cinema are desirable; the Heritage
Centre is sub-optimal for this purpose.
A senior citizens hall is fatally important.
A SKATE PARK, TENNIS COURTS, BMX TRACKS, AND SAFER CYCLING AROUND OUR TOWN-SO WE
NEED TO INVEST ROADS MONEY INTO CYCLE LANES-Clubs in schools and school sports facilities
could be made available.
A strong community needs good community facilities.
Absolute rubbish!! you are trying to destroy Green Belt open space to build houses that no one
wants nor can they afford, and destroy the visual amenity in the Whirley/Henbury area and then you
state you want to increase the amount of quality public spaces - a total contradiction!! Keep the
green belt green!! All wildlife in the area along Whirley Road and Chelford Road will be affected This area is known for many Bat Roosts - and many of these Bats are of a rare variety and are
protected as are the many Owls that have evolved in recent years due to the conservation work by
the Whirley/Henbury Bat and Owl Conservation Group. In addition there are countless rare and
protected wetland animals and creatures living in the field in this area such are protected newts that
cannot legally be disturbed
Accessible public free tennis court tennis courts needed. South Park poor condition / west park
never open
Accessible public free tennis courts needed. South Park in poor condition, West park never open
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Community Facilities
Page 111
Accessible public free tennis courts needed. South park bad condition/ West park never open
Additional 'local health facilities' must not be in competition of to the determent of the local
hospital.
Again one cannot disagree, but the current leisure centre is well placed for one side of the town and
the millionaire's village of Prestbury, but for many on the South and East of the town, we as good as
have no accessible leisure facilities. A town centre location would be a good aim.
Again, in theory. CEC's "devolved" notions for these will probably see them disappear
Agree to development of open recreational spaces for our children. Also our leisure centre is in need
of a refurbishment just to appear clean!
agree with objectives but not with strategy (valid for most objectives) Albeit, not specifically
mentioned, a multiplex cinema is probably not a judicious choice for Macclesfield
Agree with the need for town centre facilities and playing fields etc. but the success depends on
maintenance - too many football fields and open spaces are dog lavatories - cleaning and
maintenance and rules about fouling need to be enforced.
All proposals seem welcome. These kinds of facilities are crucial for improving the quality of life for
all - making Macc a better place in which to live. There is mention of a theatre/entertainment venue.
Will this include a cinema? PLEASE DO NOT FORGET OUR NEED FOR A CINEMA!
All sounds very good as long as money is not wasted by reinventing the wheel.
Allotments and community gardens would be good.
Already a good centre to west of town
An accessible leisure centre near the town centre? More allotments “ walking distance? Libraries
and museums are essential
As a parent of a young child, it worries me that in many places provision for playing fields is not
much different as to when I was a child. The Congleton Road open space has long been a terrible
place for people to play. Plans for a significantly improves community sporting facility in the region
would benefit the town and its inhabitants greatly. The Football Club can be a genuine community
hub and provides that in other towns. The new stadium proposal is key to that, as well as helping the
football club thrive, which is also a genuine benefit for the town as a whole.
Aspirations are excellent. Going by over 40 years as a Macclesfield resident, I would say that
deliverability is questionable.
Accessible public free tennis courts needed. South Park poor condition, West Park never open
Being eroded as we speak for example special needs opportunities
Build on 2012 Olympic Legacy Enhance existing athletics and other Olympic sport facilities by
provision of an indoor athletics and multi-sport facility at the Macclesfield Leisure Centre Site
Enhance the existing athletics track by provision of a covered seating area Enhance use of the
athletics track infield as a football and/or rugby pitch
But all of the Henbury school playing fields have been built on and so I have no confidence that this
will happen. That was prime land for such facilities as described.
But strongly disagree that encroaching on green belt land is compatible with preserving and
enhancing open space facilities. Keep the green belt and you already have open space facilities.
but the document needs to be sharpened up to ensure "affordability and accessibility"
But to suggest that Macclesfield RUFC should relocate (again) in order to increase the residential
potential of area B indicates a lack of local knowledge among whoever drew up Table 6.11,
doubtless replicated in the other areas listed.
Can we have more sport opportunities for adults at beginners level?
Change the second bullet point sentence: To deliver new or improved accessible indoor and outdoor
community and leisure facilities for all age groups, both in the town centre and locally, to increase
the amount of high quality public spaces, open space facilities including in particular allotments,
outdoor sports provision and children’s play provision.
Community facilities - Build on 2012 Olympic Legacy Enhance existing athletics and other Olympic
Page 112
sport facilities by provision of an indoor athletics and multi-sport facility at the Macclesfield Leisure
Centre Site Enhance the existing athletics track by provision of a covered seating area Enhance use
of the athletics track infield as a football and/or rugby pitch
Community facilities always seem the Cinderella projects; once the houses/businesses go up, the
facilities seem to be forgotten.
Community facilities are expressed well and complement the conference vision and economic
prospects.
Community facilities are obviously important. There are parks in most areas of town - these could be
improved. Local shopping could be improved.
Community facilities for the disabled should be improved.
Community facilities in the town only, what about the outer districts such as Chelford. How are
youngsters to get to Macclesfield to attend these in the evenings when there is no public transport.
Community is about creating a pleasant place for people to live and work, if we wanted to live in a
built up area like London or Manchester, we would have moved there.
Definitely needs more community performance spaces, indoors and out, more central spaces more
spaces for rent.
Definitely require more allotments - I was on list for 5yrs before I got mine. Events run by the
rangers, e.g. at Tegg’s nose are just as important as indoor facilities such as leisure centres. As for
sports, we should be building on the Olympic legacy in order to promote sport at all levels and
particularly amongst children - I have not seen much evidence of this in Macc this year and this is a
real shame. I would like to mention that the children’s play area at West Park is fantastic - please
continue to support this.
Develop in town opportunities - cinema, theatre etc.
development of theatre and leisure facilities would be very welcome
Do something about the Leisure Centre.
Don't remove any playing fields
Enhance libraries and museums in town. Multi-functional use of community and leisure buildings not multi-plex cinema. Renovate present football ground site (not new one)
Ensure that existing provision such as those offered by schools are made available to the general
public. Also make full use of the town's location on the edge of the Peak District.
Even in this electronic age, Libraries play an increasingly important role in society. They are not just
repositories for books.
Existing facilities need up grading
First objective vague. Second is more comprehensive. Does the Strategy imply committed funding or
just aspirations?
Generally supported, and will help foster a feeling of community and social inclusion.
Good for there are too many couch potatoes in our residents in general. Up to date, modern leisure
centre would be advantageous.
Good in theory
Good, but it must include a cinema. Sports provision is important. If Macclesfield Town relocate,
permission should require the provision of community facilities. I suspect the club would be happy
with this, but would need financial assistance. The Manchester City Council/FC United model is a
good one.
How can we build on the Olympic legacy and also bring the unique arts and crafts aspects to the
community?
How would you expect me to disagree with these? Its time Macclesfield had its own purpose- built
Concert Hall/Arts Venue which is accessible and affordable for its many community groups. But
harness and improve existing links e.g. South Park which has a bandstand in disrepair and has been
allowed to deteriorate.
I agree there could be a more vibrant cultural scene in Macclesfield, though a lot has already been
Page 113
achieved with the Treacle Market, Barnaby Festival and the Thread (the response shows there is a
demand). As for sport, updating the leisure centre can only be a good thing.
I agree with the Objective but the Strategy fails to address this adequately. There is a major shortfall
in Macclesfield's provision compared to other towns in the area - Knutsford, Northwich, Winsford
are good examples. All have outstanding provision of playing fields for youth football teams. In
Macclesfield, youth teams are consigned to scrapping around for substandard facilities where use is
frequently cancelled due to poor drainage or poor condition of the pitch.
I am connected to Macclesfield Junior Football Club, Macclesfield Netball Club and a trustee of the
Macclesfield Town Community Sports Trust. Travelling throughout Cheshire with the
aforementioned clubs Macclesfield facilities are, in comparison to other towns such as Winsford,
Sandbach and Knutsford, abysmal. Our children deserve much better given the effort that they and
the hundreds of volunteers put into these and other clubs.
I am not in favour of spending money on a new sports hub/conference centre. We already have a
swimming pool/leisure centre, which should suffice
I am pleased to note your commitment to increase the supply of allotments. In the making of our
recent Henbury Parish Plan, 30 households registered a desire to have an allotment but 18 months
later nothing has been forthcoming and, we are told, will not be for some time.
I am very concerned that the town centre development proposals will mean the disappearance of
the Senior Citizens' Hall.
I have been trying to give away an allotment in my garden for two years without success Incentives
such as reduced council tax should be given to homeowners with land to encourage allotment
creation
I particularly back the idea of enhancing the role of local libraries and museums in the town, these
should not be lost or subject to cut backs.
I strongly agree with the principle of Improved community facilities but again have strong
reservations about the actual facilities that are proposed within this consultation. For example
"Secure new or improved, well connected sports, recreation, play and open space facilities, including
new facilities for sports clubs in the town." I have only seen proposals for a new 7000 seater stadium
for Macclesfield Town FC. The highest home attendance that the club experienced last season was
3,434 vs. Crewe Alexandra (14 April 2012) therefore I cannot understand why this is a priority,
particularly when it involves developing a Greenfield site! It would be great to see proposals for
facilities that can genuinely be accessed by all of the community for example, following the huge
recent success of cycling in Great Britain why not propose an outdoor Velodrome - this would be a
fantastic way to engage youngsters in the sport of track cycling not currently available in
Macclesfield."...a multi functional facility including a theatre/entertainment venue...." A great idea in
principle but unfortunately, I think this may refer to the Multiplex Cinema on Churchill way which
forms part of the Wilson Bowden proposal. This proposed building that is completely out of
proportion with it's surroundings and would be much better suited in an existing out of town
brownfield location such as Barracks mill.
I strongly support creation of the proposed "Cocoon" theatre as a venue for concerts, opera and
theatre by both professional and amateur groups (the King Edward Music Society, of which I am
Chairman, would certainly use this facility)
I support development of a new stadium for Macclesfield Town Football Club if funding is available.
I think a cinema complex would be better in the Lyme Green area where more land is available I
should prefer separate buildings for an Arts/ Theatre Centre and a Leisure Centre. The Arts Centre
could be near or in the Town Centre, it would take up less land than the cinema and could bring
more business to the town in terms of eating out etc.
I think we have reasonably good community facilities in the Town, but they should not be forgotten
in the drive to deliver the other Objectives. In particular, I support the desire to improve transport
connections to and from the Leisure Centre. If we want to exploit the "Olympic Legacy", it is also
Page 114
important that we preserve playing fields and other "green" areas that allow people of all ages to
take up, or continue, sporting and other outdoor activities.
I understand our facilities are poor compared to other towns. The people of Macclesfield deserve
better and should be granted better.
I understand that the senior citizens hall is to be demolished and not replaced despite repeated
assurances that this would not happen. We have an aging population and the hall meets a multitude
of needs for senior citizens and should be replaced with equally convenient links
I would like to know more about how the theory becomes practical, all well and good on paper but
what will actually benefit people? More needs to be done to tackle the growing deprivation and lack
of community, especially for young people.
I would like to see a commitment to actively encouraging fitness and health, in all sectors of the
community, including subsiding facilities where this will bring a demonstrable benefit in terms of the
fitness and health of the community
Make sure the senior citizens Hall is enhanced and maintained
If any of the additional housing plans are to be pursued then there will need to be a large increase in
facilities as most development sites are well away from existing parks
If we must have new town spaces built, follow the European model of children's play areas in each
area in the centre. This will draw more young families into the centre.
If you get enough money to do anything that is not all you need. You really need a fully qualified
Town Planner and Architect. Not just people you call in to sort a problem out who then disappear,
but two people employed by the authority with the expertise and commitment to the town to really
make a joined up difference to the place we all love . I know, you can’t afford to. You can’t afford not
to.
Important to develop existing facilities
Improve and build on what's there: amazing informal use of parks e.g. Victoria Park bandstand for
early morning and late evening boxing lessons
Improve our existing sports facilities as many are becoming 'tired' and 'worn'.
Improve the quality and spread of leisure facilities. The current leisure centre is well away from the
town centre and difficult for many residents to reach other than by car. There are private clubs
around the town, but these are prohibitively expensive for many people, and the pools are very
small. I note that at peak times in the leisure centre, half the pool is reserved for children's lessons,
making serious swimming very difficult for the rest of us (I often go 6pm on Mondays) - we need
better facilities and better availability for working people. It is in everybody's interests to promote a
healthy lifestyle.
Improve what is already there e.g. the playing fields off Congleton Rd, land round leisure centre and
rugby pitch and Victoria Road
Improve what we already have, without cutting up and concreting green belt.
Improved leisure facilities should be a priority, and also need to include good transport links to
outlying communities.
Increasing public space is important in the feel good factor of Macclesfield.
It is all needed to improve the physical well-being and health of the population.
It is important to maintain community facilities. Keeping all our hospital facilities is a must, closing A
& E or maternity services will be detrimental to the people of Macclesfield.
It talks about new facilities for sport clubs in town. It would be nice if the main Sports facilities were
not all concentrated on the Prestbury side of town and there were some, other than football pitches
or private Clubs on the East side.
Leisure and community hub and multi functioned facility would be great for the community and
performing space would bring the people to Macclesfield. Keep our library and our museum.
Leisure facilities need to be developed with the needs on two groups in mind - 1) Members of the
public, not attached to any particular sports club or organisation, who wish to access sports facilities
Page 115
on an individual or casual basis; 2) Sports clubs whose members wish to train seriously for
competition, keeping fit, or to progress towards regional and national levels. Swimming is a prime
example where pool time allocated to swim clubs with high levels of memberships appear to be
placed second to public sessions which attract fewer people than would the clubs.
Macc has a great library and I hope the plan will include protecting this. The Leisure and Community
Hub sounds a very positive initiative.
Macc Leisure Centre is filthy!
Macclesfield does need a cinema. From my point of view one that is walking distance from the town
centre and on bus routes, to avoid the massive car park needed (as at Parr's Wood).
Macclesfield Leisure Centre is in dire need of capital investment. Only 25% of the lockers are in use
because the barrels are missing from the remaining 75%. For a simple and relatively small
investment, all the original lockers could be brought back into use. This has been the case for >4yrs.
The changing rooms are in a poor state of repair, the toilet drainage is poor leading to smells coming
back into the room. Tax-payers money has built great leisure facilities at Tytherington School and
Macclesfield College. But these are not routinely bookable by members of the public (whose taxes
have paid for them to be built). I have tried to book the badminton courts at Macc College for a
weekly match, but have been told bookings are only taken once per year, at a fixed time in the year,
and so I have to wait until that time slot. My challenge would be why not allow bookings to be made
by members of the public for any available slot when the college is open, that is not already booked
for college/school use. I have also tried to make a one off booking of the hall at the college for a
Brownie activity afternoon. Again, I was told I could not do this as bookings can only be taken at a
fixed point during the year.
Maintain what we have better - e.g. the park on Bodmin field is a disgrace but no money spent to
make it better for people who would not set fire to it.
Many facilities need to be upgraded so I would not object to constructive plans in this field.
More facilities are needed around the town to reduce reliance on cars and to also attract visitors to
the town
More facilities for youth and younger people. Also some cultural activities for older people
More Motherhood-&-Apple Pie. There needs to be explicit reference to the multiple types of
communities to be served: elderly (independent and dependent), youth, families, those in poverty,
businesses etc. This topic needs to be linked to Community Infrastructure Levy policy, since funding
will be critical for some types of facility.
More well maintained open spaces are important. Facilities shouldn't just be indoor facilities.
moving the rugby club and building round the leisure centre conflict with this developing the existing
leisure centre/athletics track/rugby club/school facilities as a sporting/leisure venue would be good
but would need improved bus links
Museums are part of the history of the town and of England and should be used more for education
facilities and for visitors
Museums need reinvestment if they are to continue to contribute to developing tourism,
Must be central and on public transport routes
Multi-functional leisure facility - Surely this was the role of the leisure centre? MLC is again poorly
utilised. Many of the facilities are for clubs only, swimming etc is difficult if you're not part of a club.
Also, the cost is off putting to many families; the cost of an adult swim is £4.00. This means that
more than two swims a week and it is cheaper to join a private gym, where you get all the other
facilities thrown in. This seems ludicrous. There are a high percentage of people in this town who
take great pleasure in walking in the green areas that surround the town. Development of these
areas would be detrimental to the leisure activities of the masses.
My indifference in this area may stem from the fact that I barely use any of the facilities in question.
E.g. I have lived here for years and have still never been to the leisure centre - for years I didn't know
there was a public bath. Are these facilities promoted well? Library is great, though.
Page 116
My only concern with these plans is the use of any green space, that would be better left as green
spaces, being manipulated to create an area that isn't that accessible to people. I support the
conversion of tarmac areas into green spaces and parks.
Natural England welcomes the aim to secure more open space provision in the town. Natural
England recommend the use of ANGSt as a useful tool that can help ensure the adequate provision
of accessible greenspace. Although this is not a prescriptive standard, the ANGSt tool can be found
at this web link:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/east_of_england/ourwork/gi/accessiblenaturalgreenspa
cestandardangst.aspx
Need to take opportunity to refresh and improve existing facilities as well as delivering new - e.g
investment in areas like Bodmin Park, support of community spaces like Whirley Green etc.
Needed NOW
New sporting facilities are vital to the community to engage children in sports and increase
commumnity spirit.
Not a lot of detail as to what is actually intended.
Nothing to argue with here
Objective 5 Community Facilities. There is little to comment upon here from a land use planning
aspect. Much will depend upon public and private organisations promoting sport/recreation for
enhancement or provision of new facilities. There is no mention of policies for safeguarding existing
facilities/sites (for example allotments or playing fields). No mention of aspirations of Macclesfield
Town FC.
Open spaces, yes why are you proposing building on Green Belt
Please ensure that this means more funding for better facilities at Macclesfield Leisure Centre, as I
feel this is getting quite run-down. Having attended various classes held at the Leisure Centre, some
of the rooms are in quite poor repair. It would be good if the Council could harness the good feeling
following the Olympics and encourage more people to improve their health by updating this facility.
Prefer refurbishment/replacement of Macclesfield leisure centre to be higher priority than
entertainment/conference facilities
Priority should be given to ensuring that existing leisure facilities are well maintained and if
necessary improved or refurbished before embarking upon new projects. Macclesfield has a
desperate need for a cinema in addition to a theatre/entertainment venue. Additional schools will
be required if the population in Macclesfield is to increase in line with the Plan. Consideration should
be given to the joint use of educational facilities such as playing fields.
Refurbishing of existing Leisure Centre would be a good start
Currently the council is planning to get rid of the Senior Citizens Hall, this shouldn't happen unless an
alternative is in situ. I think that the 'stronger links... etc.' section should come under 'Economic
Prosperity'. And allotments being a priority? Why not start a 'Dig for Victory' campaign while you're
at it? Much more important issues to address I feel.
Fix what we already have. No need to scatter facilities around the town, get what we already have,
right.
Current facilities not accessible at most suitable or appropriate times. School requirements should
be related to public need. Why was the school built on the college site when it wasn't needed?
Surely that money could have been spent on other facilities on the college site.
Need for arts and cultural facilities.
Senior Citizens Hall is a must.
Senior pensioners meeting places
Several facilities listed (education and health) do not really belong here. More playing fields, yes. But
an expensive Hub???
Small leisure centre, gym and Langley, Rieter Scraggs site would be good.
Page 117
Sports facilities needed in S Macclesfield - a swimming baths.
Strategy bullet point 5"Improve school facilities" There is an overcapacity of secondary school places
in Macclesfield at the moment, (though not in the most popular schools). Tytherington High School
is the only one controlled by the council. Several of the new housing areas proposed are close to the
Fallibroome Academy. This school is already the biggest in Macclesfield and was origially built as a
180 pupil per year school, although it has expanded by 25% since then. Cheshire have consistently
opposed any expansion to the facilities at this school and the students suffer as a result. Very poor
dining and library facilities have been ignored for many years. I find it hard to believe that this will
change! I would like to see the secondary schools concerned enabled to work together to find a
viable solution across the Academys/High school/faith school/private school divide. Cheshire East is
an organisation who could facilitate this but I do not believe there is a will to do it. No need to
provide another Hub/ theatre/performing space - there are several in Macc already!
Strategy points no.s 2 and 6. most important. Point no.2 is vital for Macclesfield's future.
Strategy second bullet point should be part of Objective 1
Surely one one theatre/ entertainment venue, community performance space. This should be the
same building as cinema e.g. three screens
The availability of leisure activities is essential for a thriving town with an emphasis on easy access
from the means of transport
Thank you for including the provision of a theatre/entertainment venue which also is reflected in the
Strategy for Community Facilities and in the Southern Silk Quarter.
The current Leisure Centre is dated & could be improved on it's current site
The current Leisure Centre is of benefit to people who live in the area. People living on South Ward
cannot afford to use public transport to get there. Leisure facilites need to be more evenly
distributed.
The current provision for the arts is generally dismal, albeit the NCO concerts at the Heritage Centre
are delightful.
The existing leisure centre should be improved/expanded rather than building new sports facilities.
This site has space and already incorporates indoor and out door facilities. There is no need to
duplicate sports facilities, if suitable public transport systems are in place.
The lack of suitable facilities i.e. cinema, theatre which would provide for those without personal
form of transport, to access
The leisure centre could be much improved cleanliness etc
The leisure centre should continue to be developed and invested in. Macclesfield parks are a joy of
the town. Green space should be a priority in any new housing development.
The leisure facilities and community outdoor activities possible in Macclesfield's immediate
surroundings, along with the exercise, fresh air & associated health benefits, should be considered
alongside the provision, at great expense, of a 'Leisure & Community Hub' and 'multifunctional
facility'.
The leisure centre is valuable, and I use it regularly. However, it is difficult to access, particularly
without a car. Could some of the facilities (gym / badminton courts) be made available at schools /
other sites further east? West Park and South Park are generally excellent, and well used;
maintaining these should be central to the strategy.
The more sports facilities the better - the benefits of exercise and structured training, team building
and competition can not be under estimated. Promote outdoors exercise - cycling, walking, running,
circuits, team sports - by offering free taster sessions. Encourage local clubs to open their doors and
have a mini expo in the Treacle Market area to show people all the different sports on offer.
The new skate board park in Bolly has gone down well. Our kids seem to respond well to a bit of
attention being given to their needs.
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. To provide efficient
infrastructure, services and facilities needed to sustain the existing and future residents of the town
Page 118
¢ To deliver new or improved accessible leisure facilities for all age groups, increase the amount of
high quality public spaces, open spaces including in particular allotments and other opportunities for
local food production, outdoor sports provision and children's play areas Secure new improved, well
connected sports, recreation, play and open space facilities including new facilities for sports clubs in
the Town Build stronger links between schools, businesses and the community to secure high
quality, low carbon training and employment opportunities for young people Improve and enhance
community facilities including the development of a Leisure/ Community Hub, a multi-functional/
lifestyle centre/entertainment venue and performing space Enhance local health facilities to meet
the needs of neighbourhoods, current and future populations Ensure that the needs of any new
development are met, particularly with regard to school places, medical provision, wildlife
conservation and energy management Improve the quality and spread of leisure facilities Facilitate
local food webs
The Objectives and Strategy are fine, but, again, I don't see how this will happen if you add houses
here and there to our already busy town. Many of our schools are already over-subscribed; building
a housing estate near or behind Fallibroome will only make this worse. If, and only IF, we do need
3500 new homes, then they should be in one development where infrastructure, schooling and
community facilities can be planned as part of the development.
The original decision to locate the Leisure centre on the very outer rim of Macclesfield was the worst
possible choice for this important leisure facility. Further blunders perpetuate in there not being a
bus stop proximate to the leisure centre, especially for those with mobility impairment. Again the
words used in the document relate to worthy aspirations, but proof is in the pudding and to date
money has been directed away from consolidating what we have and fixing issues that exist and
rather towards new propositions akin to wiping the slate clean and starting over.
The principles are fine but too general to be of value
The provision of allotments is mentioned "in particular" in the objectives, and should also appear in
the community strategy, but does not.
The town is desperately in need of a multi screen cinema and more recreational facilities for young
people,
The town needs more recreational facilities, especially for the teenagers. I do not agree that we
need a Multi-plex cinema with fast food chains attached to it but a cinema/theatre much in the
same vein as the Majestic which was so unnecessarily destroyed. We must also encourage
recreational facilities for older people in the community, there is little enough for them to do. Also
allotments should be provided, I think there are many areas which used to be used for this purpose
which are not longer in use. We must be encouraged to be self sufficient and healthy rather than
relying on the supermarkets and fast food outlets. Sports facilities should also be encouraged so that
we make a fit and healthy community.
The vision states we need green spaces and then wants to build on it. Macclesfield lacks good large
country parks apart from Macclesfield Forrest which people have to drive to. There are wonderful
green spaces and fields surrounding Macclesfield which attracts people to live here. Knutsford has
the heath and Tatton Park and WIlmslow has the Carrs. Please leave our green fields alone. There is
a wonderful Leisure centre already. The council are threatening to demolish the old peoples' hall in
the car park on the Duke Street Car Park to make a new entrance to the car park without concrete
plans to build another for them. Facilities indeed! Please leave our green belt alone. I agree that
Macclesfield needs activities - an new theatre or cinema would be great.
There are currently no tennis courts available which are suitable for public hire. The current courts in
South Park have fallen into total disrepair and are a disgrace.
There is a lot of talk about providing the football club with new facilities. Considering their lack of
achievements, they should be playing on the local playing fields. The space that a football stadium
would take up could be better used for housing, employment or leisure facilities for everybody.
There is a risk that the development / housing development conflicts with this objective. Edge of
town leisure space is important and needs to be retained.
Page 119
There is a school in Macclesfield that introduces children to Go kart racing, quite a few adults have a
kart too, yet the nearest circuit in Cheshire is on the Wirral, Hooten park, could Macclesfield build a
circuit
There is a strong Leisure Centre on Priory Lane with a theatre in Fallibroome School. There is a
theatre on Lord Street. Assuming the SMDA is developed with a new stadium and Leisure complex
on Moss Lane, is there really the need for a further Leisure and Community hub in the town centre
providing a theatre, entertainment venue, community and performing space. If it is to be planned,
then let it be funded by market forces, not the Council.
There must be a distinction between leisure facilities for community, entertainment and
performance venues for residents and theatre/performance spaces to attract tourists. A multifunctional facility will do none of these properly. There needs to be a range, with a clear sense of
how they work together. Residents are very poorly served - there are no attractive, town centre
venues of the size and quality to bring in or develop superb and popular acts.
These changes have been discussed for so many years that local people are tired of hearing about
them. A town centre cinema would do wonders for the town - the Heritage Centre Cinemac only
appeals to a certain type of person and does not offer the sort of facility that would appeal to young
people. The old Rex site could be restored to a Knutsford type cinema? The Macclesfield South site
could offer good options but there needs to be something for young people in the town centre to
offer alternatives to bars. The library is an excellent service in a good location, but the upper floor is
underused and would make an excellent 'reading cafe'.
These must be available and within the financial range of the majority people of the town. It is no
use to have exclusive facilities that can only be afforded by a few.
These should be sufficient for the towns population and not all on the outskirts
This all sounds very lovely but where is the money going to be found from? How is it intended, for
example, to enhance the role of the library when libraries per se are under threat ? At the moment
you can' even park near the library and it is as far from the bus staion as you can get it ! As for health
facilities. By 2030 the number of over 75 years old citizens will have increased in this country by 3
million against today's figures. How is the town proposing to cater for the massive increase in its
elderly population ?
This area is key if we are going to increase our health and wellbeing and avoid some of the issues of
obesity and ageing. Leisure and social facilities that are centrally located to bring people into town
and are accessible to all are important. It is important that facilities can meet the needs of all ages
and bring the generations together to strengthen our community. The plan needs to include the use
of gardens and green space throughout Macclesfield as community facilities not just fill ins. The built
environment can enhance the community development and cohesiveness in so many ways and the
local plan needs to build this into all its plans. There is growing evidence in Dementia Friendly
communities and as we have the fastest ageing population in the North West, Cheshire East should
be thinking about this in all its developments.
This I feel is very ironic that you want to increase outdoor space for children and leisure but want to
destroy green belt to add more (not needed) housing??
This seemed fairly week. There are a number of adequate to good sports facilities existing in
Macclesfield in parks, schools, leisure centres and so on, I think better promotion and access would
be of more benefit than more facilities (except unless a very specific need is identified). Too often
capital funding goes on buildings and not people, investment in promotion, access and a good team
of people (coaches, volunteers) would be the most efficient improvement. I don't agree with
building a theatre, despite having spent most of my working life in the theatre. There are 100s of
theatres across the country, many struggle to keep going, likewise with art galleries. Theatre and art
for the community should be developed around resourcefulness, a building or empty space or park
can be transformed into a place of entertainment or art or creativity by using the very skills that the
arts develop. I feel providing support, and licensing arts and entertainment events would be far
more useful than an underused building with the costs of upkeep.
Page 120
This would be a good thing as long as it is refurbishing and improving existing facilities without it
being at the cost of any greenbelt countryside.
Town centre performing space (400/500 seats) strongly encouraged.
WE already have a leisure centre, this must be improved upon, with better transport links,
affordable prices. Whatever happened to free swimming for children. The swimming baths are
already open and staffed, How much more does it cost to let a few children swim for free? Better
links between business and school to open up more post education opportunities.
We currently have an excellent sports centre, good sports clubs; many of which use school playing
fields or pitches, running track, etc. I am not clear of the need for significant further investment in
sports facilities. Similarly for children's play areas: the parks provide excellent facilities. The proposal
to increase allotments does seem of some merit, although I don't know details of current demand.
We have a large leisure centre which is very under used. The government introduced a free
swimming sessions for older people and then with all the cuts took this away. The council would be
better using their time to consider all the facilities they already have and improve them for local
people instead of taking up more space in an already crammed town instead of building more.
We have a small leisure centre which needs modernisation
We have long required an East - West link road plus supermarket and Cinema on the South Side of
Town
We need a cinema, better shops, a revamped leisure centre as the facilities at the current one are a
disgrace and health hazard. I certainly wouldn't visit it in its current state with my family.
We need affordable leisure and social places for people to go and also to hire.
What is the strategy for using the existing schools facilities for the community -for example, to play
netball at Macclesfield High the club teams in the local league pay to use the facilities and then have
to go in though the fire door because Macclesfield can't be bothered to provide a full service to it's
residents.
What should the community provide or subsidise? I swim in the centre of town in a private gym, I
am entertained at MADs etc
Where possible make school facilities available for general public use.
What is the future of the Senior Citizen Centre? A very popular and much used facility
Why does the bus not go to the entrance of leisure centre now? Where exactly would this town
centre community facility be built when the senior Citizen replacement hall is still not met.
With aging population need for community facilities with easy access.
Would like a new cinema in suitable area for easy access.
Page 121
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Environment
Do you agree or disagree with the Environment Objectives and Strategy as set out in the
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
Appear to be some conflicting aims as part of the strategy for the Environment is to value the
attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt,
however the Development Options include a number of sites in the Green Belt.
Positively managing and enhancing built heritage, where applicable, both in terms of historic town
centres but also other individual assets both designated and non-designated (i.e. ensuring they are
properly considered and their conservation managed as part of development allocations/proposals)
Achieving high quality urban and architectural design that builds upon and enhances sense of place.
Promote specific place based solutions but also innovative design tailored to its context. Ensure that
the needs of pedestrians are foremost in the design of new developments. Achieving high quality,
sustainable development that minimises consumption and impact on resources and its effect upon
both the natural and built environment. Ensure that developments are designed to respond and
adapt to climate change. Ensuring that an informed approach to landscape, sustainable drainage and
green infrastructure is adopted and that high quality is integrated into development proposals,
particularly for peripheral sites
Absolute agreement and alignment with these objectives and the proposed strategy. In particular
the two strategy points: To make the best value of brownfield and derelict land in the town. To
minimise the development of Greenfield areas.
Additional housing to Green belt spaces will effectively bring with it environmental damage. The
area between Whirley and Henbury is well known to be boggy and be host to many creatures of
environmental benefit. There is evidence of Foxes and Badgers living in the open spaces, Barn Owls
and bats are in evidence, Pheasants, Ducks are a regular feature and Ducks nest annually in local
gardens surrounding the green belt land. If more houses were to be built this precious environment
would be lost. Light pollution would be an issue as would noise pollution which would increase to
the detriment of the local community
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Environment
Page 122
Again I agree with this but don't see much evidence of proposals that support this objective. Areas of
special historic value will be dwarfed by the Wilson Bowden development, Unique sightlines across
the town to heritage buildings such as Christ Church and The Heritage centre will be lost. I
completely support proposals to safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation. However in
my view this would apply to all the greenbelt land surrounding Macclesfield which is currently
threatened by this draft plan. Protecting one small nature reserve does not make it ok to develop all
the other countryside as natural ecosystems require huge areas of land in order to sustain
themselves. I would definitely like to see the River Bollin enhanced with in the town as it could
become a real feature (see the Olympic Park for ideas of urban river regeneration)
Again I do not disagree with sentiments but the objectives need to be more specific to be useful
Agree with all but feel we shouldn't be developing Greenfield.
Agree with the overall aims but do not see how this relates to new road building or building on green
belt. The Bollin needs to be opened up through the town despite the problems of old and new
development along the banks. This could be a real improvement and bonus for the town
All wildlife in the area along Whirley Road and Chelford Road will be affected - This area is known for
many Bat Roosts - and many of these Bats are of a rare variety and are protected as are the many
Owls that have evolved in recent years due to the conservation work by the Whirley/Henbury Bat
and Owl Conservation Group. In addition there are countless rare and protected wetland animals
and creatures living in the field in this area such are protected newts that can not legally be
disturbed
Allotment sites should be made available both near the town centre and on the town's estates.
Community allotments should be encouraged to promote healthy alternatives (and fast food outlets
should be strictly limited). Green or vacant spaces in the town should be considered for community
plots and beds, community orchards etc. (Edible Incredible in Telford has made a huge difference to
the town and how people view it). Links to Riverside Park should be promoted - so many people
don't know such a beautiful area even exists.
Although I agree completely with the objective, I believe that the other strategies in this document
are working against it. How can be building on green-belt be supportive of this objective? Minimise
development of Greenfield areas? This must be minimised to zero! There are plenty of brown-field
development opportunities in the town.
Although some of the stated aims are laudable I am concerned regarding the effects of Greenfield
building, increased traffic/congestion, and of the effects of many more people using limited
resources.
And the contradiction is obvious: you want to BUILD on the natural value to the south of the town:
that is an area close to unique in Europe- a lowland moor, formed under very rare conditions- and
worthy of protection. Only the very fringe of the Moss Estate should be developed. Building on land
does not enhance nature.
As outlined in my comments under section 3, the Council need to have serious consideration for the
environmental impact of building new houses on greenbelt and Greenfield sites.
As previously stated one of Macclesfield's major attractions is its scenic location in beautiful
unspoiled countryside, let’s not plan to spoil this.
As you might have guessed, I believe that this is fundamental to the future of the Town; anything
that is done in the future, must have at its heart the desire to preserve the areas of beauty and
national importance that surround the town including, most importantly, as much of our Green Belt
as we can. The previous Macclesfield Borough Council took this very seriously, and this message
MUST be understood and accepted by the new CEC.
At proposed site J living close by we have seen lots of wildlife, newts, lizards. The lake provides a
year long home for ducks. Geese also visit when migrating. Trees on perimeter have preservation
orders.
Brown field and derelict sites should be used where possible and limit green field development
Page 123
Build on Green Belt land
Building on greenbelt land is a bad strategy. There is no development sustainability for farming or
agriculture mentioned in this document. I strongly suspect that the council owns most of the areas it
wants to develop. Agriculture is one of the main positive features that Macclesfield has - it is
surrounded by green fields and hills, not housing estates. Ground is excellent in this area for
growing. Think where the food is going to come from for all these people! I see no mention of
keeping areas of just "normal" wildlife habitat, sorry, badgers, owls, foxes, rabbits, voles, newts,
frogs, ducks etc,etc, so I can only presume everywhere but Cock Wood is up for being built on. I see
that the council has promised to keep all 5119 acre historic farming estate (Cheshire East News Sept
2012 Page 7), although this plan says the land is ready for development!! Quote "We owe a lot to
our farmers"
But leave Green Belt - country air is requisite
But strongly disagree with the housing policy proposal to build new houses at he expense of the
environment.
BUT the building of 3,500 houses on the green belt is rather contradictory with this objective! What
to believe?
But the other aspects of the Town Strategy will conflict with these laudable aims.
But the proposed housing plans are in direct contrast to this identifying large areas of green belt
land which could be built on. So I don't have any confidence that it will happen. See comment about
Henbury school playing fields
Concentrate on the brownfield sites before releasing greenbelt land for development.
Conflict with housing development around the town re. green belt! Agree strongly with the
objectives and the priorities they suggest.
Consideration should be given to the re-generation of the derelict and empty buildings in the town
centre.
Considering how ugly much of central Macc is, most of this seems dreaming.
Definitely
Despite the statement in the environment strategy that the Green Belt is valued, all but two of the
proposed sites for development are in Green Belt and the area , if developed, would closed up the
gap between Macclesfield and Prestbury, contravening Green Belt purposes.
Details? Or is this just window dressing?
Developing on Area C will directly impact on the Bollin Valley at the Riverside Park. The wildlife in
Upton Woods and the surrounding land (including Bats, Tawny Owls and Buzzards) will be adversely
affected as will the appearance of the area. Similar issues apply to areas I and J. These areas should
not be developed.
Development on the Green Belt should be avoided rather than minimised. The impact during
development should also be considered and minimised.
Do not build new housing or commercial developments on green belt. People have bought existing
houses around the green belt areas at great cost and do not wish to see those areas ruined by
building work that will greatly reduce the standard of the immediate environment for those existing
properties not to mention the effect on value and desirability.
Do not disagree. How can you? Infrastructure 1st.
Do not use the Greenbelt and destroy the wildlife structure already in place.
Enhance and improve natural areas e.g. Macclesfield canal, but sympathetically to its natural
environment. Keep or heritage sympathetically restored and well visited.
Environment first without building outside of the towns centre
Excessive housebuilding will directly adversely affect the environment
First bullet point could emphasise the range and number of heritage assets, such as Listed Buildings,
Locally Listed buildings, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments and an Area of Archaeological
Potential.
Page 124
Fortunately the TS includes an objective/strategy on the Environment, although its coverage is
limited. The objective includes preserving and enhancing areas of natural value in and around the
town CWT welcomes the elements of the Strategy, which are: to safeguard and enhance sites of
nature conservation and geological importance; to enhance the essential character of countryside in
and around Macclesfield; to minimise the development of Greenfield areas; to value the
attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including the GB.
Glad to see investment in improving and enhancing the Macclesfield Canal, Bollin Valley and
Middlewood Way
Good in theory
Good to see the canal mentioned here.
Green belt land should remain free of development.
Green belt must be preserved. Building materials for any new retail centres need to be sympathetic
to the rest of our heritage buildings. Craven house is the biggest blight on the town centre and needs
to be demolished sooner rather than later!! Our parks need to be enhanced, they are beautiful open
spaces that are abused by vandals since park keepers, on site, were disposed of.
Green belt was instituted originally to prevent urban sprawl not block all development ( controlled)
Plans seem to balance with environmental needs
Green Spaces and Tree lined roads are "Good" for the town.
Green; supply water and sewerage infrastructure has an important role in the protection of the
environment and the management of the flood risk; surface water and climate change.
Greenbelt land is one of the few remaining protections for our countryside, wildlife and the benefit
of the environment. Once lost it can never be recovered and must be protected at all costs.
High cost to the public purse.
How can the countryside be enhanced. it will be destroyed if more houses etc are built
How to "value" the Green Belt without developing it?
However this should not be taken as an open invitation to build wind turbines across Macclesfield
town or the surrounding countryside. Caution should also be exercised over the use of solar panels.
Whilst they create much heat or electricity for their owners it is at a cost to all other members of the
population. We are effectively all subsidising those who have solar panels installed.
I agree subject to a concern that the objectives could be compromised by overriding priorities like
housing.
I agree with the Council's vision on the Environment but am sceptical as to how this is concordant
with building 3,500 homes in the area.
I agree, but there should be NO development of greenbelt or Greenfield sites. These should be
protected at all costs.
I concur with the Henbury Society's comments on the proposal for a new road between Congleton
Road and Chelford Road.
I endorse the statement "Safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geological
importance". The last point of the Strategy - the word "value" should be replaced by "protect".
I generally agree with the strategy as stated BUT supporting the use of renewable energy is a thorny
point. I think wind farms would be a bad thing. Unsightly, expensive to buy and run plus very, very
inefficient thus costly to residents. I believe at all costs the Green Belt must be retained.
I have commented above regarding transport. For all its virtues the recycling collection does not
include flats, we were fobbed off when we asked. There is no point in having a wordy strategy with
all the right intentions unless it is put into practice with a clear vision.
I have concerns about improving the access to countryside recreational facilities
Page 125
I note also and agree with your environmental objectives and strategy.
I notice that this is the only section which mentions countryside recreational facilities and would
suggest that Macclesfield's location on the edge of the Peak District national park, and also
surrounded by beautiful countryside, should address more prominently the inclusion of outdoor
activities and country recreational activities among the other objectives and strategies.
I particularly endorse the provision of more allotments and the safeguarding of sites of nature
conservation and geological interest. When considering brown field and "derelict" sites please
remember that these provide valuable corridors for the movement of wildlife round our town and
reservoirs of ecological diversity - wild bits of our town centre should be preserved alongside retail
initiative and given equal priority.
I strongly agree with this objective and believe that if the strategy was employed and use was made
of the current vacant housing, all brownfield sites / vacant mills and other non Greenbelt sites we
could avoid the need to build on the Green belt, which as the strategy states the Council wishes to
avoid as well as the vast majority of its residents (given the results of the Place Shaping
Consultation).
I strongly support the need to safeguard and increase the supply, quality and accessibility of green
spaces, to pay particular importance to nature conservation, geological importance, to improve and
enhance the Bollin Valley and to value the attractiveness and integrity of surrounding countryside
including the Green Belt. I support the view to preserve historic Ancient Woodland and surrounded
by the Bollin Riverside Park, an area which is regularly used by, and very popular with, both the local
Macclesfield community of all ages through out the year and those from further afield. There is
much local wildlife here and my view is that there is already accessible access to this countryside
recreational facility.
I strongly support the use of brownfield and derelict sites prior to the loss of any Greenfield areas.
We need to preserve our natural environment. I welcome the green issues raised but feel we could
and should go much further in these areas.
I strongly support your Strategy pledges to Make the best use of brownfield and derelict land in the
town, Minimise the development of Greenfield sites, Value the attractiveness ............of surrounding
countryside including the Green Belt.
I would prefer the final bullet point to be changed to:"To preserve the attractiveness, accessibility
and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt"
If building occurs on greenbelt sites then any existing wildlife will disappear
If minimising the development of green areas was important then you wouldn't be considering a
bypass to the city centre via the South Macclesfield development area
to.
Improve certain council estate areas, but retain current Green Belt
Improvement and enhancement of the Bollin Valley is a good idea - but it would not be improved by
building houses in area C.
Improvement required to visual approach from south on A523
In general, I oppose building on the green belt.
In terms of environment, Macclesfield is a nice place to be. That said, the continual quality is very
dependant on the sustainability of the immediate area. On a wider point, eco and sustainable
building development is a real must. Please make sure that its has empathy with its surroundings
Increase the supply of green spaces? why build on good productive agricultural land. In 20/30 years
time people will need to be fed too.
It is extremely important to make the best use of brownfield and derelict land.
Page 126
It is intended to demolish the Heritage Walk Garden Area, mature tress and grass. Wilson Bowdens
plan for Environment fall very short of what we have.
It is particularly important to maintain and preserve the areas of countryside east of the town
towards the hills which provide a access to walking and enhance the outlook for many of the
residents of the town.
Key feature of Macc is the transition from the Cheshire Plain to Peak District, need to emphasise this
for environmental and tourism reasons. Renewables statement is very general, Poynton rejects
wind, is there scope for hydro power in Macc?
Land North of Prestbury Road has current economic and environmental value (sheep and cattle
grazing and green lung) between Macclesfield and Prestbury.
leave the environment as it is - it does not need "enhancing" as one persons enhancement is
another’s despoiling
Macclesfield is blessed with opens parks and spaces. It is vital that these continue to be supported
Macclesfield is extremely well placed to become something of a cutting-edge town in terms of the
environment. The location next to wonderful countryside seems to be under-valued at present. I
would like to see * more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy schemes; * much
better accessibility to the countryside - especially to the east (e.g. greater walking access into the
hills, new cycle routes with cycle-hire facilities in the town); * putting environmental issues up-front
in all new developments, considering use of materials, modern housing developments, etc. Make
Macc a centre for green development, which will add to its tourist appeal and its pleasure to live in.
Macclesfield is ideally positioned to be really attractive to young people- with and without families.
Preserving and promoting the natural environment both within and on the periphery of the town
should be an important selling feature.
Macclesfield's mills used to be powered by the multiple streams and rivers through the town. Why
not equip these with modern electricity generators to supplement solar panels etc. Every
commercial building with a south facing roof should be targeted to encourage and assist the
installation of solar panels.
Maintain the Green Belt - that is why people want to live here. Jobs can be elsewhere
Make more green space a priority in the town centre/square
More greenery
More must be made to visually improve the town.
More use of empty buildings e.g. mills
Much of the area surrounding Macclesfield is washed over by the Green Belt and I strongly agree
that the Green Belt should be used as a buffer between conurbations, however, I would like to see a
relaxation of restrictions put on existing developments within the Green Belt.
Must fight to retain Green Belt, not simply 'value' it
Natural England support aims in Objective 6 to preserve and enhance areas of natural value both in
and around the town, to promote links to the countryside, energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy and to make the best value of brownfield and derelict land in the town whilst
minimising the development of Greenfield sites. However, the re-use of brownfield land, for
development may not always be appropriate on sites of high ecological value, therefore brownfield
sites will need to be subject to an ecological assessment.
Need to ensure that all developments use the latest affordable technologies to reduce running costs.
Need to manage and maintain the areas outside the town centre as recreational areas.
Need to invest in the future of community facilities particularly the leisure centre which requires
modernisation work to remain a key focal point within the area
Need to understand in more detail of the renewable energy resources, does this mean erection of
wind farms in the area?
No mention of developing public rights of way to promote sustainable forms of transport.
Macclesfield is a heritage town and the history and culture of that needs to be kept and enhanced to
Page 127
grow the visitor economy. Many people pass through the town via the canal without actually
stopping; more could be made of the canals to encourage those on boats to explore the town and
enjoy its facilities. A welcome to Macclesfield sign somewhere would let boaters know where they
are.
Not sure what the strategy is regarding renewable energy, disagree very strongly if it means wind
turbines.
The objective contains no reference to environmental quality from the standpoint of pollution
prevention using planning powers, minimising or avoiding pollution and disamenity during the plan
period. Neither are such considerations taken forward into the Strategy. The elements set out in the
Strategy could conflict with each other in some instances and there is no guidance as to which might
take precedence although this could be assessed on a case by case basis thereby reducing certainty
for prospective developers and the public as to the significance of environmental objectives in the
plan.
Objective agreed Strategy the environmental protection/enhancement objectives may conflict with
those promoted under other issues which would take precedence?
Objective and Strategy should acknowledge that it may be necessary to release Greenfield land or
Green belt land for development in particular where it is demonstrated that its release would not
impact on the visual attractiveness of the countryside or adjoining green belt and if demonstrated
that it is sustainable
Objectives 1, 2 and 4 most important. Strategy - whilst recognising the future housing needs we
must minimise the development of Greenfield areas. There are plentiful options without spoiling the
most attractive surrounding Greenfield areas.
Objectives supported. Aim of minimising the development of Greenfield areas is appreciated but it is
important that such a statement is qualified be a recognition that it is not feasible to meet the towns
future development needs without significant incursion into open land, and green field development
is therefore inevitable.
Obvious really.
Of-course I agree with the Objectives as you've outlined them, but I DEEPLY disagree that this Plan
will deliver them. You say: "Safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geological
importance." I say: tearing up the green belt fields and ponds in Site C, home and feeding grounds to
countless wildlife including newts, protected bats, ducks, foxes, geese, herons, owls, pheasants,
birds of prey..., will NOT be safeguarding this green lung for our town. You say: "Enhance the
essential character of the townscape and countryside in and around Macclesfield." I say: the green
belt is an essential part of the character of our town. Building houses on the various greenbelt sites
will permanently and irreparably destroy landscape and character that is not only home to rare and
varied wildlife, but also offers delight and joy to the many many people who live by and enjoy them.
You say: "To minimise the development of Greenfield areas." I say: building 360 houses on Site C
(and others) will permanently destroy a precious Greenfield site. You say: "To value the
attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt." I say:
the proposed location of 360 houses in Site C has complete and utter disregard to this, and every
other environmental point you claim this plan will deliver. Looking at the Sustainability Appraisal,
you have marked a many number of things as + which should either be neutral, or negative, for
instance:"Rural economy: +" how can taking a semi-rural environment and turn it into urban sprawl
be classed as + ?? As someone who was born and raised in Macclesfield, I am insulted with the
discourse between your Objectives, and the plans to destroy the countryside that are not only
important to wildlife, but give the town its character.
ok
One of Macclesfield’s strengths is the character of the buildings in and around the town centre.
Our environment is what I fear is most at risk from this plan. It seems very likely to me that the plan
will only be partly funded at best, and that the inevitable adoption of second and third best options
on the other objectives will lead to significant compromise on the environmental objectives, and
Page 128
irreversible damage to our local environment.
Our environment should be protected. This should be the first priority before anything else.
Page 12 of the Macclesfield Draft Town Strategy has many good points regarding the accessibility,
conservation, enhancement and integrity of the surrounding countryside INCLUDING Green Belt
Parks require regular maintenance and supervision, i.e., Park Keeper.
Particularly supportive of improving the links with natural areas. The ease of access to green belt
areas needs supporting.
Please bear in mind when thinking about developing areas that brownfield sites can sometimes be of
greater ecological value than greenfields.
Please develop the brown belt, leave the green belt, and prosecute those who wilfully damage the
beauty of the area.
Please don't build on the green belt and green filed sites. Your vision for the environment does not
add up. All the development visions for housing are based on build on green field and greenbelt sites
however the vision says it will try to preserve it. Also much of the development looks like being built
on council owned but tenanted farms. Especially around the south and West of Macclesfield. In the
Newsletter (Cheshire East News 2012) the council states that ' The Council has decided that it will
keep its 5119 acre historic farming estate'. It cannot do both.
Please get more serious about Dog Dirt. Yes its good to see more responsible dog owners, but the
amount shed in all of our walking places, parks and at Tegg’s Nose is sickening and a health hazard
for everyone. Our canal tow-paths are disgraceful and I would never talk a visitor for a walk along
them. Its also difficult to walk them after any amount of rain has fallen due to the lack of
maintenance.
Please note point re minimise the use of Greenfield areas when planning housing etc.
Please save our Green Belt.
Preserve the historic quality of town and special character.
Proposals for development at points F & G are not likely to improve or enhance the Macclesfield
Canal. 8 out of 10 areas are Green Belt how does this fit in with this strategy?
Protect green belt and make pledge to protect it for a long time, 100s of years.
Protecting the green belt should under lie all development planning and be the number one priority.
Maximise the use of the land we have rather than build on it and take it away. Absolutely improve
the canal, Bollin Valley and Middlewood way - this will benefits locals and tourists - organise local
groups to help maintain these improvements, lead local walks, etc. Protect sites of special biological
interest, ancient woodland, open spaces. Where appropriate, work with land owners to open up
access to them for walkers and cyclists and promote this community approach.
Protection of the Green Belt is vital. Development of the link road A536 to A537 and the associated
housing is contrary to the intention, expressed in the Local Plan, of preserving the Green belt.
Protection of the open areas we all enjoy are paramount and the strategy offers the comfort that
these will be retained and improved.
Put brown field development before green belt. Leave green belt alone.
Renewable energy - not wind farms, please!
Renovate heritage buildings - unique cultural importance. In town links and preserve greenspaces.
Minimise use of Greenfield areas.
Safe footpath to Tegg’s Nose. Much more green energy and sustainability
Lots of effort on green areas like the canal - what about the urban areas? Sweep the streets, get rid
of weeds, EMPTY THE GRIDS, fill in potholes, make it a pleasant experience to walk into town on a
wet day without getting drenched by cars going through standing water that can't drain away. And
yes I have reported it many times (and so have others according to the Macc Express) but nothing
gets done. Perhaps you could have another competition - to identify the worst blocked grid, with the
prize being a visit from the Highways Department to clear it. Lots of banal statements, what was the
workshop task that day - imagine money is no object and describe the ideal environment? And yet
Page 129
again the first paragraph is a good argument against the proposed town centre redevelopment.
Don't build on Greenfield sites. Don't put any more cars on the country lanes No street lights in the
country. In particular ensure that any street development resticts its lights to the town and does not
pollute e.g.: by going over the brow of a hill.
With regard to the environmental advantages we currently have with such a lovely unmade road
running close by. We also have many barges passing along the canal, bringing trade into our town.
I'm sure they would rather see open countryside than rows of houses.
Should preserve the Green Belt.
Shouldn't protect the Green Belt be in this
Small areas of open space near housing areas. keep the "back cloth" to Macc town open.
Strategy lacks focus in the maintenance of environmental quality (e.g. weeds growing everywhere,
uncontrolled tree growth both hiding street signs, and danger to public
Strategy wants to enhance the essential character of the townscape and countryside in and around
Macclesfield. I believe this is critical to the future of the town as an attractive place to live.
Macclesfield is an inherent mix of rural and industrial urban “ the canal and hidden walkways
through town, all the Parks and access to the country as indicated in the 2011 Place Shaping
Consultation. If we lose this, we may as well be Milton Keynes. The countryside does not surround
Macclesfield, it is an integral part of the town.
Strongly agree but find difficult to reconcile with other elements of the strategy; namely the option
to use tracks of green belt for high density housing, adjacent to or involving directly productive open
farmland and in the case of site C, ancient woodland destroying one of the limited number of truly
green areas within the 'town'.
The council must abide by its own guidelines. The Wilson Bowden development does not fit with the
objectives as described here or with similar objectives in the current local plan.
The Council needs to make better use of the River Bollin and the canal. The Bollin seems to be
considered as no better than a drain and the state by Tesco’s is disgraceful. Could have a book fair
under the underpass - under cover!
The council has no interest in the environment or they would not be creating all this development.
The different bus companies should be encouraged to coordinate their timetables and routes and
provide buses convenient for people to come into and leave Macclesfield at night,
The environment must be secured at all times, therefore removal of polluting facilities should be an
objective. Expansion of parks, gardens, areas of recreation should be maintained, improved and
expanded.
The environment needs to be protected from those who are only concerned with financial gain.
The green belt is the most important feature of Macclesfield, which keeps it a small market town in
beautiful countryside, it should never be sacrificed
The green belt should not be touched at all. No windmills please!
The green spaces both within the borough and around its edge should be preserved otherwise we
will just become another urban area with derelict sections with its boundaries where people would
not like to go.
The greenbelt in this area is vital to support the future of this planet, if we give planning permission
to build on greenbelt where will this end. The planet is suffering from the effects of man to the
detriment of many species of wildlife, the bees are one of these and the effects of their decline is
not yet fully known, but their habitat is seriously under treat, and building on any greenbelt either
now or in 20 years will impact on the environment for ever. The council can not pay lip service to the
environment with the refuse system and then give the green light as it were to building on greenbelt
land. Where will this end. Does this council really only think of money and not the effect of ruining
the town of MACCLESFIELD, with all their crazy plans. HANDS OFF THE GREEN BELT..
The greenbelt is supposed to stay Green..i.e. for the environment. If you build on these it will
destroy wildlife that will never return.
Page 130
The Leisure Centre and sport track is OK, it just needs money spending on it! However, the access
road is awful, especially when Falllibroome has a Do or when the children are leaving school. The
hundreds of residents of Hamble Way and adjoining roads must be driven mad by the jams caused
by sharing 10 metres of road with the school and the Leisure Centre complex. What on earth does
"making best value" mean for bullet point 7? Brownfield and derelict land must be re-integrated and
re-used. As well as being a blot on the landscape, it is wasted space that attracts vandals.
The local environment, open spaces and green belt should be protected at all costs. Do not think
local green belt areas can be sacrificed just because the peak district park is on our doorstep.
The Macclesfield to Bosley Rd needs improving especially by The Co-op and The Old Mills, and speed
reducing measures.
The main thing should be to preserve what we already have (Countryside, Parks, Green spaces and
above all Green Belt land. All new developments should aim to be the best they possibly can in
environmental terms (to include pedestrian and cycle routes to town, inconspicuous parking, safe
areas to play and access to public transport as well as how they are built). This is an area that could
really make Macclesfield stand out against similar towns and should be actively encouraged.
The natural beauty of the area and the strong heritage we have must be preserved at all cost. How
can you state in this section that you want to preserve the attractiveness of the surrounding
countryside when you are proposing to build on many sections of GREEN BELT? It all sounds
wonderful in the strategy section but how much of this will happen. Any construction of new
developments should not only be energy efficient but attractive to the surrounding area. Enough of
our heritage has been destroyed and we don't need any more destroying.
The natural beauty surrounding the town is one of its greatest assets. This should be protected at all
costs.
The new town centre proposals in no way make concessions to limiting their energy use. There will
be a huge roofscape for example that could take advantage of solar thermal and PV, but the
developers instead refer to the roof pitch being inappropriate for such. I find this odd in that the
building is being designed new, so why can it not be designed to be appropriate. Macclesfield
benefits from its close proximity to natural landscape and views to it from the town, yet no
proposals are made to cut green corridors through the town to enable access, such as the
Middlewood way already provides for those on the North-eastern side. Cycle lande are also not
offered so these are instead left to jostle with busy road traffic in order to attain their destination.
Again locating housing development at the furthest reaches of the core of Macclesfield eats away at
the wider environment and encourages people to use private transport to get where they are going,
thereby impacting on the Macclesfield's overall carbon footprint. How is Greenfield site
development being minimised when they are the only proposals in the document?
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. To preserve, enhance
and celebrate areas of special historic and natural value in and around the town.To improve nonvehicular access to its countryside recreational facilities. To improve and enhance Macclesfield Canal
corridor and other key recreational routes, notably the Bollin Valley Way. To require energy
efficiency and the use of renewable energy in new and existing developments by introducing a clear
mechanism such as a compulsory code for sustainable home. To deliver high quality design in all new
development. To ensure Macclesfield is resilient to the consequences of climate change and
volatility in energy and natural resource security. Protect, enhance, and improve linkages between
buildings, sites and spaces of heritage and cultural importance. Safeguard and increase the supply,
quality and accessibility of green spaces, allotments, sports pitches, parks and playground areas
throughout the town. Associated with the introduction of a code for sustainable development,
provide energy efficiency and renewable energy in new and existing developments and require the
development of renewable energy projects of an appropriate scale, in appropriate places. Safeguard
and enhance sites of biodiversity/nature conservation and geodiversity importance. Enhance the
countryside in and around the town. Enhance the urban landscape character, landscape elements of
public amenity facilities and maintain those streetscape elements of high value. To improve and
Page 131
enhance the Macclesfield Canal corridor, Bollin Valley, Middlewood Way and other footpaths, cycle
ways and bridleway routes into, through and out of the town. To minimise the development of
Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside,
most especially the Green Belt
The options which destroy agricultural land are environmentally unacceptable
The plan gives the town to become a leader in environmentally friendly redevelopment. Open
spaces are vital and sustainable construction should be used wherever possible.
The positive statements made are totally belayed by the proposals.
The proposed sites nearer to town will naturally create more traffic, as most properties now have
two cars the environmental will be adverse in the extreme. as I have stated above, the pollution
from this traffic will be taken in by children of all ages, from 0-18, as they walk to an from school to
attend, or, as a sibling. the town does not need any more green areas to be taken away. The affect
on wildlife is rather too obvious to point out and I would suggest there is a civil duty to lower
pollution and maintain green sites in areas close to the town centre where the less wealthy tend to
live.
The protection of our historical heritage and Greenfield sites seems NOT to be the most important
matter in the current plans
The protection of the Green Belt is very important
The Society draws your attention to the last three bullet points of the Strategy which underpin our
main concerns shown later. To make the best value of brownfield and derelict land ...To minimise
the development of Greenfield areas To value the.......surrounding countryside including the Green
Belt
The statement in the strategy 'to minimise the development of Greenfield areas' is not supported.
The delivery of development on Greenfield areas in areas such as Macclesfield will be essential to
avoid or minimise the need to release Green Belt land. The strategy should instead focus on ensuring
that development is of a high quality, and that it provides good pedestrian and cycle linkages as well
as greenspace, both of which will bring environmental benefits. It is not possible for all of
Macclesfield's housing targets to be delivered on brownfield land and the NPPF no longer states that
the development of brownfield land should be prioritised.
The strategy includes the objective of preserving and enhancing the historic environment. This is
helpful, however the document could go further by addressing the requirement of paragraph 126 of
the NPPF for LPAs to set out a positive strategy for the conservation of the historic environment.
Para 126 refers directly to the Local Plan, however the Town Strategy could contribute to this
approach for example considering strategies for heritage assets at risk, from neglect, decay or other
threats. An objective refers to the need for high quality design and materials in all new development
- but does not define what this would mean in practice in a Macclesfield context. We advocate an
approach of contextual design that understands the characteristics of a particular place, based on a
thorough analysis of distinctiveness. It would be worth considering the potential for commissioning a
characterisation study of Macclesfield to help inform appropriate design in the future. Advice
regarding historic character assessments is available on our website.
The strategy is at odds with the plans for the Green Belt.
The strategy is inconsistent. How can it claim to "Safeguard...green spaces" whilst at the same time
seeking to build on the green belt? The green belt should remain as it is.
The suggestion to violate the green belt with housing is incompatible with the following strategy: "To
value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green
Belt."
The surrounding countryside is Macc's greatest asset, and must be absolutely protected and
enhanced. No new development should be permitted in the green belt. I support the objectives of
making best use of brownfield sites and derelict land in the town centre, and this should always be
the option rather than rolling back the green belt
Page 132
The town clearly lacks a cinema and modern theatre. A local community centre alongside could
extend use of facility during daytime and a conference centre would attract outsiders to use the
hotels and restaurants. Our location near to the mainline railway could compete with the more
expensive Manchester city centre venues, perhaps for smaller events.
The Trust is pleased to note that the Town Strategy includes an environmental objective to improve
and enhance the Macclesfield Canal. The advice contained in the Town and Country Planning
Association and BW Policy Advice Note (PAN) on Inland Waterways, published in 2009 , may provide
further useful information as the Town Strategy progress
The world is running out of oil and you want to add a ring road
There appear to be some clashes between housing development and environment. I feel further
work is needed on this objective/strategy.
There is concern that additional promotion of the Macclesfield Forest area for recreational purposes
should be low key. It is considered that this area has reached its capacity, in relation to car parking
and access via country lanes, particularly at weekends.
There is huge scope to utilise and improve the accessibility to the countryside around and within
Macclesfield and not to do so would be a wasted opportunity. The surrounding countryside and
close proximity to it, is the towns biggest asset and is sadly not utilized to its best. There could be a
wonderfully designed eco performance space/ social centre in the town-see St Davids' Oriel Y Parc
for inspiration.
There must be some effort to preserve heritage, but this must be kept to a reasonable level. Christ
Church must be put back into use and it is probably necessary to relax some restrictions in order for
this to become practical. As a Christian, I would love to see this building used by a Church group
again - but it would need serious redevelopment to provide modern comfortable facilities such as
kitchen, toilets, effective heating etc.
There needs to an emphasis on Macclesfield as an historic silk and market town and programmes of
activity to support this
There should be no building on Greenbelt and nature conservation should be paramount
These plans read well, but there appears to be a great contradiction when one compares them with
the proposed development sites, of which nearly all are on the greenbelt. This point needs to be
greatly reconsidered, with brownfield sites and disused buildings being put first, regardless of
financial cost, i.e. the concern over profit. Surely it is of greater 'profit' to all to maintain the natural
environment, and its beauty around the town!? This land cannot be easily 'returned' to nature once
it has been built on, and surely by the very action of building on the greenbelt CEC is going directly
against the purpose of it - to prevent urban sprawl! it has been brought to my attention that similar
agendas for the development of housing were acted on in Ireland with the creation of suburbs
sprawling out into the countryside. Many of these houses are currently left empty, with the name of
'ghost town' being hung over them. What a waste of resources and what a crime to destroy areas of
natural habitat and natural beauty. I am strongly opposed to these plans!
This is all very weak and must be revised into something more ambitious
This is confused - much good rhetoric about the natural beauty of the area and then details of the
Green belt changes to be made to allow building.
This is key to making Macclesfield an appealing place to live, work and play
This is one of Macclesfield's strongest assets, and should not be neglected. Again, the need to
correlate this to opportunities under CIL will be critical, since funding of public realm is complex. In
some areas, it may be appropriate to set up a Business Improvement District to fund and manage
open space, whereas in others it may be possible to facilitate a Community Interest Company or
other means of managing green infrastructure. This touches all aspects of the Strategy and should
not be an adjunct to development.
This seems to be odds, however, considering the ugliness of the proposed town centre development
- this does nothing to 'enhance' the existing sites and building of historical and cultural importance,
Page 133
precisely the opposite!! See my comments about views of the hills disappearing, concrete car parks
adjoining the beautiful buildings on Park Green etc etc.!! Also, if you are proposing to build 3,500
homes on green belt land, how is this protecting green belt land?! It seems that the proposed
protection is very selective.
This strategy is not compatible with building in the Green belt!
To achieve what is set out would ruin the very environmental strategies of which this draft
document speaks. You cannot have 3500 houses without ruining the environment.
To AVOID development of Greenfield areas, the town is big enough if use is made of areas and
buildings which stagnate through lack of vision.
To protect the green belt to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent
neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban
regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. (Paragraph 80 NPPF). To
channel any type of housing development towards the Brownfield sites.
To talk about enhancing the canal etc, is a great idea and very much needed but is pointless if a
housing estate is built on the green land around it.
Too many houses will directly affect the environment
Turn disused areas into green areas NOT multi-screen cinema and multi storey car park.
Using the green belt cry to defeat some ideas needs a serious review on the basis of facilities
provided and not a point blank NO. The constant mentioning of Cycling facility provision is a sop to
the Green ideas and in this Macclesfield area is not practical. Improving the provision of transport
within and around the town at convenient times and affordable prices is a priority not he provision
of Cycle Racks and lanes for the very small minority. Lets look at the big picture PLEASE
We acknowledge the inclusion in the Environment Strategy of commitments to improve the Bollin
Valley and Macclesfield Canal corridors.
We agree with many of the statements on the strategy but we do not then understand how then
using greenbelt for housing fits into this. As the open spaces are part of the feel of Macclesfield.
We must keep our green spaces and parks. They are great for wildlife walks cycling. Bollin valley and
Middlewood Way mustn’t be interfered with.
We must maintain our parks and open land spaces, Repair when broken.
We must protect our Green belt I have been here over 30 years and regret what we lost when the
Tytherington estate was built. We have lost enough and do not wish become part of a Manchester
conurbation.
We need green fields not more cheaply built buildings that will ruin the area,.
We need to concentrate on holding on to our countryside with its flowers and fauna. Too many
animals are becoming extinct all down to our greed and disinterest of the future generations of
animal and humans. We must learn to adapt and live alongside nature as they have as much right to
live as we do. We keep eroding their habitats and when they encroach on our soil we moan or worse
still chase off and shoot.
We need to ensure that other strategies in this document do not impinge on this - particularly the
Greenfield areas we have around the town. If we lose these, we lose the character of Macclesfield.
We need to look after the environment. We only have the resource once and we need to safeguard
it for those generations to come.
We note the Council's commitment to retaining their farming landholdings and trust this
commitment will hold true and override any desire for such land being sold off for residential or
other development.
WE shouldn't touch any green areas! Better access to the country I assume is code for new roads
and to that I cannot agree. Leave us as we are thanks!
West Park and South Park are generally excellent, and well used; maintaining these should be
central to the strategy. Play facilities at Victoria Park should be improved.
Page 134
Whatever is built, solar energy, wind energy and ground source heating should be planned from the
outset, including any town centre development. I agree that more allotments need to be provided.
When considering areas for potential development this strategy should be vigorously pursued.
When has building on green belt ever been a good idea?
You destroy a superb environment by your proposal for area I and the link road
You have lost faith of local people.
You have strategies to: - Safeguard and increase the supply, quality and accessibility of green spaces
throughout the town - Safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geologocal
importance. - Make the best value of brownfield & derelict sites. - Minimise development of
Greenfield areas, - Value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside
including the Green Belt Excellent. Then why later in the document do 8 of the 10 potential
development options lie in the Green Belt? Maybe it is because the town has grown extensively over
the past 50 years and is almost full up, hence the small number of brownfield sites.
You intend this objective and strategy to apply only after you have removed current green belt
status from certain areas, after which you will only "minimise the development of" the remaining
"green field areas". I disagree with this. The strategy does not protect the current "Green Belt" and
the word "minimise" clearly includes the intention to allow green field development. You merely
"value.... the surrounding countryside" but say nothing to make me think you want to protect it. I do
hope that you can strengthen your objective and strategy by stating an intention to "protect" as well
as to "value" our surrounding countryside
You talk about valuing Green Belt in this section yet you are proposing to build on about 8 green belt
sites!!! You are talking in Community Facilities about having increasing access to open spaces - you
do not need to increase access as a first priority - you need to leave the ones we have alone. We
must preserve the open spaces we have around us and not build on them anymore we need to
concentrate on brown field sites not green ones.
Your strategy won't achieve your aims. You can't say you support sustainability, low carbon footprint
and adequate use of brownfield sites when most of the your proposed options are in Greenfield
sites.
Page 135
Q2 Objectives and Strategy: Deliverability
Do you agree or disagree with the Deliverability Objectives and Strategy as set out in the
Strongly Disagree (9%)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree
or disagree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Comments:
A bland statement which doesn't seem to identify anything concrete
A large population growth is not in the vision. Population is enough unless Macclesfield is to become
a small city
Achieving Objective no. 1 is vital to Macclesfield's future. The Strategy here is very thin.
Agree with the need for ICT for homes and business, but disagree about the need to grow our
population.
All sounds good.
An increase in the visitor numbers will lead to an increase in businesses; jobs and events
As I don’t agree with any of the new and future plans I have nothing to say here apart from PLEASE
LEAVE OUR TOWN AND SURROUNDING AREAS ALONE..
I'm not sure that the plan is deliverable, given national financial constraints, and that cost-saving
compromises will cause serious damage to Macclesfield town and is surrounding environment.
As statements of intent this is o.k but look carefully at all details before any final decisions.
assume the main effort is the technology infrastructure- not sure how this would be developed, but
if a credible plan is produced it could be a winner
At times it is difficult to imagine Cheshire East Council delivering anything acceptable to public
sentiment.
Be surprised if it does happen!
But not at the cost of our greenbelt and Greenfield sites.
By 2030 we will be either using renewables or bankrupt
Bypass must be built possibly with 106 agreement monies.
Cafe culture? More like (edited by admin) chav culture. Whenever I walk down Mill Street there are
youngsters with dogs (and babies) shouting and swearing, rubbish swirling down the road, chuggers
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q2 Deliverability
Page 136
every 10 yards, car parks half full, etc.. This is Macclesfield, not Paris, and I think a dose of realism is
required by the planners. And I must mention again Fig 8.8 - you should be embarrassed to include
something so meaningless!
Communications from the council should be put where people can see them in their daily life
activities. Ccommunity boards could be placed in all supermarkets, doctors surgeries and the library
Deliverability is meaningless jargon. At least find a plain English word to tell us what this is about
Deliverability needs to include local people to ensure that the plans meet people’s needs and will
not be "white elephants", therefore I welcome this opportunity to comment.
Deliverability will for the most part be subject to financial restraints imposed by the current
recession and central government cut backs.
Does this actually mean anything?
Don't understand what the second bullet point under Strategy means. What " schemes"?
Doubtful about second bullet points in Objective and Strategy
Economic well being must be part of overall well being of the population.
Ensure future maintenance of natural and built environment of unique character of historic town
and surrounding countryside
If this means it can be done without more building.
Feasibility and viability studies need to be done completely, not in terms of older proposals or
beliefs. The provision of a Cinema in Macclesfield... Knutsford had a requirement for a Cinema and
one was included in the Civic Hall complex along with a performance space. Macclesfield apparently
didn't warrant any of these as there wasn't sufficient demand for them. The demand was apparently
based on the existing use - No Cinema no use, No Theatre space, so no use, so no need for these???
Get it right this time!
Flexibility to respond to market conditions is something that happens without the need for the
Council to intervene, example is shown with the revitalisation of Sunderland street through the
perseverance of independent businesses there. Similar too with the outstanding success of the
Treacle Market through the hard work of a few individuals in the absence of Council involvement
that previously deemed such things unachievable. ICT infrastructure again is something that private
industry will maintain and develop with the market and needs no further comment. Flexibility by its
very definition cannot be planned for and works best when left to grow organically.
Flexibility yes, but not to be beholden to developers. We must be a demanding authority of those
who wish to develop in this town.
Frankly those objectives and strategy were just jargon.
Funding is lacking from government in relation to affordable housing
Further information required to support this objective. Timely delivery of water supply and sewerage
infrastructure should be a major consideration for the plan.
General statement with nothing Macc specific, surely a commitment on part of CEC to work with
community groups and employers etc should be included
Get on with it, particularly with regard to flexibility and economic wellbeing, neither of which seems
to be currently addressed.
Good in theory
good luck - you're going to need it
How do you propose to ensure future maintenance of environment when services and staff are
continually being cut?
I agree with the Objective but the Strategy is meaningless - no concrete actions are included.
I am sceptical about the deliverability of the scheme. I have seen a number of Local Plans in the 39
Page 137
years I have lived in Macclesfield and none of these have been fully implemented
I can't fault the logic of this Objective, but I have to say that the strategy for delivering this seems a
bit "light" on specifics!
I do not accept the underlying premise that Macclesfield is competing, nor needs to grow. The type
of business wanting to attract is very mobile and depends upon the environment so maintaining the
current pleasant one is essential
I do not think this has been thought through and a town referendum should be considered so that
the population of Macclesfield can make their feelings note. In particular the deadline to respond
should be extended and any planning meetings in the pipeline should be shelved.
I don't know what this means.
I doubt that the Council or its officers are equipped to deliver the strategy as economic success for is
determined by national and international economics.
I see this being delivered because so many large building firms already with one hand on the land lets hope a fair and transparent planning consultation takes place.
I support ICT development but not the thnily-disguised free hand to developers!!!
I think we must focus on an improved town centre before building thousands of homes that will
need schools and expenses we don't have.
I would hope any undertaking is deliverable on time and within budget but I doubt that this will be
achieved given past history within the town.
If Macclesfield is to expand then its size then adequate facilities must be provided
If this ever happens in my life-time I'll be amazed - I've been living in Henbury 11 years and have
been promised high speed internet access and still haven't got it and BT Openreach tell me that it is
unlikely to ever reach Whirley Lane where we live so I can't do business from this location. What
evidence is there that the population will grow?? If you are wanting to ensure the future
maintenance of the natural and built environment the sure way to keep this is not to destroy the
greenbelt area and build new homes on them that are totally unnecessary - again a total
contradiction - on the one hand you state you want to preserve the natural environment and yet you
propose to destroy it with housing development
to.
I'm not really sure what this means. If it means deliverability of the proposed changes to
Macclesfield, then changes have been talked about for many many years. The general impression
seems to be 'we'll believe it when we see it'. I just hope that when it comes, it's what the people of
Macclesfield want.
In the light of the present councils vast and needless overspend it is highly unlikely much
improvement can possibly be made
Is it significant that the strategy for this section is so short? Rather telling. This strategy appears
completely unrelated to its objective. The 3 stated objectives should have been included in previous
objectives - first bullet should be in the economic prosperity strategy. The second bullet should be in
objective 5. The 3rd bullet should be in the 2nd and 6th objectives.
It is important to adhere to NPPF guidance (para 154) in terms of those matters which the Local Plan
is able to control realistically and deliver on. Consider securing the delivery of necessary
infrastructure for the town will be significantly easier when associated with a large scale
development e.g. South West Macclesfield, than piecemeal or dispersed approach.
It is not clear how the Council plans to deliver any of this!
It is very easy to be critical, however the record of Cheshire East so far is awful. The Council need to
recognise that they have to up their game considerably, and take people with them/ work together.
Page 138
So far it has been somewhat confrontational.
Macclesfield has a number of existing physical infrastructure links (rail, road, canal) and it’s
important to add ICT links to assist the general development of the area.
Make sure you have the right quality of people to do this, use the talent in the district rather than
waste money on excessively expensive consultants
Natural England supports the commitment within Objective 7 to ensure the future maintenance of
the natural and built environment; however a clearer explanation as to the mechanisms for the
delivery of this aim is required.
Need to embrace hi tech to ensure the town centre is competitive for new businesses but also retain
its heritage
Need to include the rural areas of Macclesfield, not just the town
No chance
None existent.
Not sure I understand what this section means - and I'm not convinced that you do either.
Not sure this council is capable of delivering anything if we go back the catalogue of disasters of late.
Not sure why feasibility and viability studies have not been completed before consultation. Why are
we being asked about things e.g. an extra 10000 people if it is not known if this is viable, feasible or
sustainable?
Not too much construction pylons
Objective - first two are vague, Third may conflict with first two Strategy not clear what the words
actually mean in practice
The first two objectives could conflict with the third - which would take precedence ? The strategy
seems self evident something that would be done as a matter of monitoring plan performance. Is it
intended that there should be a protocol for revisiting sites or schemes that do not come to fruition
during the plan period rather than wait for developers to require reconsideration of viability and the
content of any Section 106 obligations?
Objective is good. Nothing seems to get far beyond the examination stage.
Obtain strong voices at Regional, National and European political lobby levels. Existing business links
with USA and Scandinavia are worthy of greater encouragement as are new links for India and the
Far East.
Particularly support attempts to improve broadband speeds, as the key to encouraging the growth
of start-up businesses and working from home
Past evidence is that funding is not forthcoming the plan lacks any fiscal element
Please don't neglect the existing 'natural' for new 'built' as it seems to me that it is pandering to
perceived but unproven needs at the expense of the needs and wishes of the existing loyal
population.
Put it in plain English.
Rather vague
Sensible plans should be put in place.
Shouldn't protect the Green Belt be in this
Show flexibility - retail units are empty - reduce rents and leases so that they can be filled now.
Remove red tape. Make parking free or very low cost - we have to compete with the out of town
shopping centres. Encourage more activity such as the Treacle Market - use that space to showcase
lots of different things on offer - the Peaks, sports, arts - it should be buzzing every weekend with
different events or entertainment - Covent Garden is always packed - and people will spend in cafes
and shops while they are there. Bigger isn't always better in terms of development - build on Macc's
USPs and location and play on the market town character.
So far nothing has been delivered for years most people just want a clean well maintained town no
need more shops when so many are empty. Thank goodness for Treacle Market and the organisers
Page 139
Strongly agree as long as this does not involve development of Greenfield sites or greenbelt
Take into account current and future culture
The cost of the plans overall will involve unacceptable concessions in order to gain the finance
necessary from private industry sources.
The Council is in danger of its programme being led by Developers!!!
The council needs to move quickly to approve the strategy. What the town does not need is a delay
in making the correct decisions. Lets get it moving.
The current services are more than adequate
The deliverability of "the vision" would be sponsored by the private sector (the land developers) so it
would be in the council's interest to sell "the towns gold" to the highest bidder, and therefore they
would be able to "deliver" the vision at the local people's cost. I wonder how many of the councillors
live in the proposed areas of development, or even in Macclesfield. Once again it is the bureaucrats
telling us what we need rather than what we want.
The deliverability should also take into account the effect on existing areas (including the effects of
new transport links and commercial premises on those already here). The effect should not be
restricted to the town but also take into account surrounding villages and towns.
The detail is the issue. General objectives and strategy are fine but the other proposals for housing
will contradict with the last strategy point regarding Green Belt
The division of the town into different quarters is an attractive idea, one that has the potential to
really highlight the local distinctiveness of the town. I am concerned however that the newer areas
may over shadow the historic areas as the plans move into action. I believe that it is in the historic
areas of town that the real attraction lies to people wanting to visit the town. These areas are what
makes Macclesfield different to other market towns, therefore I feel it is imperative that a clear
fluidity is created throughout the whole town.
The Green Belt will have to be challenged - but does each square foot make the same contribution?
How many more times will the town centre redevelopment be recycled - lets just get on with it.
The lack of a cohesive plan to date leaves me unconvinced this plan can be delivered.
The objective and strategy lack any substance whatsoever. To set an objective to "provide facilities
and infrastructure" to support the development of the town would require a significant investment
in roads, leisure facilities, and amenities which is beyond the capability of the Council to achieve.
The objectives and strategies should be amended to the new phrasing below. Develop flexibility to
respond to actual and emerging market conditions and deliver genuine wellbeing in the town.
Examine the feasibility and viability of schemes in the delivery of the overall sustainable. Vision for
the town. Evolve a low carbon strategy that will enable the delivery of developments which are
carbon neutral or which are low carbon emitters
The objectives are agreed with. The strategy statements seem unclear and vague so it is hard to
know whether or not they are desirable.
The objectives are fine. The strategies are too vague and need to be reworked and expressed in a
less abstract manner.
The objectives are full of contradictory statements
The objectives seem fine, although I'm not convinced on how much the population is growing given
the demise of AZ manufacturing and general reduction in the numbers of primary school children.
The strategy seems woeful. There isn't one! A clear strategic aim should be to enable broadband
provision throughout the main areas of the town and environs.
The points set out in this draft plan are unlikely to come to anything because there is so much
contradiction. On the one hand you are setting out points which sound really for the benefit of the
town but on the other hand I feel that no matter what the general public say you the Council will
carry on with its plans.
The saga of the town centre redevelopment has gone on too long. It is important not to lose sight of
the potential to improve live with smaller scale actions, and not to put everything on hold
Page 140
indefinitely.
The strategy has to be agreed and commence asap, there is no point in debating it for 5 years before
starting what is inevitable - sustainable housing, investment and eceonomic opportunity.
The strategy is too vague to be meaningful.
The vagueness of this makes it nearly meaningless.
The words written here are meaningless gobbledegook - read them yourself, what does it mean we
need to do!
There are certainly some "nice to have" ideas in the overall strategy, and deliverability will clearly
come down to prioritizing. Businesses, employment and jobs need to take priority. So the questions
that need to be asked are whether improved infrastructure such as better access to the M6 would
make a difference, and whether a business/conference centre is needed. On these type of priorities
and questions, Macclesfield needs to look at other nearby towns, centres. Buxton has plans for more
than one theatre, more than one conference centre so why build these things here. Therefore, the
deliverability must look at how Macclesfield completes and fits in with its neighbours.
This all seems to be a lot of planning speak waffle - not sure what it really means! Need to ensure
that the aims in 1 to 6 are met and be flexible enough to respond to changes in conditions.
This could mean almost anything.
This has been in the pipeline for many years and has been through several consultations. Many
people in the town dismiss it as pie in the sky, and the time has come for it to become a reality.
This is a very weak section. Need to support exchange of expertise between companies and mutual
support.
This is just common sense.
This is not a strategy - but tactics which are highly non-committal. Must be sharpened to mean
anything.
This is not as clear as the other objectives.
This is too vague to understand.
This is weak. The considerable entrepreneurial spirit in the town must be harnessed.
This part defeats me completely. The strategy on page 13 is nonsensical and meaningless as written.
This section is disappointing and contains no firm ideas at all. Highway improvements are mentioned
elsewhere under objective 4 but there is no statement of principle in this section as to how this
might be realised, whether by national funding or what.
This strategy is not viable and does not support the peoples' vision for the future of OUR town.
This strategy is mainly about allowing developers carte blanche to build what they like where they
like and the council will assist them by building roads to suit. The council should show an equal bias
and not just towards the developers.
Time is of the essence here as there have been too many delays and the town centre is so out of
date. Comments are made by locals and none locals alike that the town has a 'run down' look and
there is need to attract people to the town centre.
TIMESCALES, FUNDING, MOTIVATION, and PRIORITIES are the key drivers here and with the current
financial climate it seems that the majority of the Ideas/plans will not be possible without major
cutbacks in other directions and this will be immensely unpopular. It is hard to see how things like
the development of Sports Fields, new Road structures etc can be progressed and at the same time
spending on improving the Traditional Town Centre be progressed!! Where is this money coming
from? The public cannot stand anymore cuts or price rises to match some High powered Dream. We
must be realistic and there is NO trust in the administrators to deliver if the money is available. A
very important point to consider is how the developments will be monitored to ensure there is No
waste and fraud or mistakes are identified and prevented.
To achieve the objectives as outlined and to implement the various stated strategies considerable
monies will be required. No reference to this appears to have been made other than the Community
Infrastructure Levy which would appear to be applied at the Local Authorities discretion. If applied
Page 141
however this could act as a disincentive to companies wishing to settle in the Macclesfield area.
To redevelop the rotten derelict buildings and land protect green belt
Too expensive. Too costly in terms of loss of environment
Too vague
Unsupported by financial backing.
Very generic statements here. What measures are you going to use?
We can only do what money allows and at the time the tax-payer cannot afford an increase in
council tax or anything else.
We have seen before proposed plans not developed due to varios commercial and financial
constraints.
What a load of waffle!
What’s the likelihood of the plans staying on budget? Currently people are bending under the weight
of just heating a home and food prices etc escalating, how much can we afford? Also I would like to
see that local employment is the way forward not contractors from other areas of Cheshire East or
further afield
When the time comes will you actually be able to afford to develop the infrastructure to a desirable
level which adequately supports an increase in population? Good to have the objectives but I
question the deliverability of them.
Within the strategy it is accepted that a basic framework has to be set out at the commencement of
the exercise using latest available information and thereafter it should consider application of
flexibility in the light of future circumstances.
Yes, and can be done without 3,500 new houses!
You clearly don't know quite what you mean about this. Are you talking about development of latest
technologies including digital infrastructure, or are you talking about making the town economically
flexible? The best way to be flexible is to have a wide range of different kinds of businesses locally
and further afield, especially the medium size ones, so that we are not too dependent on one sector
or one employer. Plus good transport (bus, rail and cycle strongly represented as well as motor) out
of town to employment opportunities elsewhere.
You've not delivered anything in the past ten years what hope is there this time round?
Page 142
Q3. Potential Development Sites
Do you agree or disagree with the Potential Devleopment Sites in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
• Strongly Agree (49%); Agree (29%); Neither Agree or Disagree (13%); Disagree (4%); Strongly
Disagree (5%)
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Potential Development Sites
Page
143
Q3. Site A: Land to north of Birtles Road (Housing)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site A in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Of those that did responds: Agree (35%); Disagree (65%)
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site A
Absolutely disagree. Why even consider such urban sprawl. Redevelop the disused, crumbling mills
and office buildings!
Adjacent to SBI
All of the sites offer good potential for new housing.
All these developments would generate a huge increase in traffic on Prestbury Road which is already
congested at peak times
Already a very heavily populated side of town with poor road links to the other side of town.
Already filled up with enough development
Already largely residential, but SBI should be protected.
Already too built up and local roads cannot sustain extra traffic. Just built Jasmine Park and Whirley
Road is now really busy
Although the development option sites are outside the Area of Archaeological Potential, all of the
favoured potential development options would need to be assessed to define the need, if any, for
further archaeological mitigation and whether this needs to be done at the pre-determination stage
or can be secured by condition. This advice is in line with Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the
Historic Environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular reference to
Paragraphs 128 and 141.
An assessment of the sites demonstrates that in some cases there are significant barriers to land
release as a number of Development Options perform most of the purposes of Green Belt
particularly true of A, G, H and I. A large number of the options are also questionable in terms of
their deliverability, particularly where there is a need for significant new infrastructure to support
development as well as the issue of existing occupancy particularly B and I (the latter also
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site A
Page 144
constrained by an SBI on site).
Any loss of greenbelt is regretted but incremental extension in this area could be undertaken and
still leave greenspace to boundaries of Alderley Edge woodland
Area A Birtles Road would place built development beyond the leisure centre and Fallibroome
School; access to main road network problematic (Birtles Road and Whirley Road); remote from
town centre and shops; extension of urban area north westwards into open countryside on edge of
former area of Special County Value for Landscape. Green Belt fulfils function of preventing urban
sprawl.
Area gives a rural entry to the town on the north and keeps the town separate from Prestbury and
Nether Alderley
As long as this is not over developed there may be a justification for this - but in order to
complement the present surroundings it would only provide upmarket housing
As mentioned previously there are other more suitable areas; you would need an additional school
too; why spoil green belt
As mentioned previously. This area should stay as green belt. Too many houses. Far too big an
estate. Surrounding roads already far too busy.
Better areas than this can be developed to maintain the green belt; as not all sites are needed this
one should not be selected as others are less of a loss of green belt. We have to ensure that any loss
of green belt should be kept to a minimum.
Building here will not encroach into other residential areas
Building on Green Belt land is undesirable.
Building on Green belt would spoil the character of Macclesfield
But South West Link Road should be extended north/north-eastwards to Site C.
Cannot build on Green Belt
Close to 2 Local Wildlife Sites (SBIs) and Sandy Lane Nature Conservation Priority Area (NCPA) in
Local Plan.
Currently inadequate infrastructure, BIrtles Road & Whirley Road narrow and busy at present so
would need major work. Increase of traffic past Whirley school would represent increase risk to
children. Would require expansion of Whirley School to meet needs of increased population.
DESTROYS THE CHARACTER OF HENBURY VILLAGE AND ITS ENVIRONS.
Developing housing in this location will serve only to offer high end properties in suburban
developments which will ultimately increase car ownership and will not encourage use of the town
centre by residents.
Development of this area will extend an existing housing area and the future residents will be able to
benefit from the sports facilities at Macclesfield Leisure Centre and the educational facilities at
Fallibroome School and its feeder primary schools.
Do not encroach on our Greenbelt land.
Do not know the site but believe this would impact on the roads and school in the Upton Priory area.
The roads can not take any more traffic and Fallibroome School is over subscribed.
Don’t know some areas to comment. Generally All Sites: 1) Greenbelt boundaries should only be
altered in exceptional circumstances, vital for present and future generations. 2) Brown field sites
should be used for housing. 3) Preserve green open spaces. Green lungs are vital between areas of
housing. 4) Preserve sites of nature conservation and historical and biological importance. 5) Avoid
building on floodplains 6) Planners need to visit areas (on foot). 3D information maps. 7) Could
present infrastructure support development?
Don't agree with this incursion into the Green Belt. If Sites A, B, C and J are all developed a huge
tract of attractive and useful land will be lost.
Even though this is the closest site to where I live, I think that all of the sites to the north are not
suitable as they will be the furthest from the new bypass. Any of these sites would simply add to the
congestion of trying to get across town to the better roads. The local roads in these areas cannot
Page 145
cope with more traffic at rush hour/school run.
Existing Green Belt line should be retained in this area. The proposal would considerably increase
the traffic onto the B5087 and/or the road to Prestbury village which would lead to unacceptable
levels of vehicle congestion.
Fallibroome School already oversubscribed; creating new houses in the catchment area = difficult
Farm and green belt land. Leave alone.
Fine for housing as it has good facilities already established on it doorstep
Further comments are provided in WCEPL representations submitted separately
Good areas for housing close to good schools + leisure centre
Green belt
Green Belt - don't touch it!
Green belt - save it!
Green belt and wildlife there must be protected.
Green belt land
Green belt land must be maintained
Green Belt land should NOT be built on under ANY circumstances.
Green belt land.
Green Belt land? Must be maintained
Green belt Please do not build on any green belt sites, in particular sites with ancient woodland or
biological interest.
Green belt site, this should not be built on in order to keep the identity of this rural site/area- A key
aim of the environment statement is to protect Green Belt.
Green field site. Should remain undeveloped
Green field with insufficient infrastructure planned to support this growth.
Greenbelt
Greenbelt land
Greenbelt, SBI site
Greenfield sites should be used as little as possible
I am not at all happy at the loss of Green Belt land involved in eight out of ten of the development
areas proposed, and though I can appreciate the pressures to find more space for houses and
employment facilities I would like more assurance that there are no more brown field sites available
particularly as the draft plan stresses the need for town centre living. I have reluctantly ticked the
areas I think are least damaging to the Green Belt for development, which I think would meet the
3500 by 2030 housing target
I am opposed to building on this greenbelt land. It will make a huge difference on the residents
there.
I believe it makes more sense to develop in the centre of Macclesfield
I completely object to the idea of developing any Greenfield / greenbelt sites. Virtually every
available green space that has become available in Macclesfield has been developed over the past
20 years and now it seems the council is considering developing greenbelt. This is flawed logic greenbelt was created to prevent uncontrolled growth of the towns - if we have reached the stage
where we are considering developing greenbelt then something has gone wrong (i.e.
overpopulation) and this needs to be addressed otherwise the problem will just be compounded.
This will lead to even more congested roads and overburdened facilities in the town and again
contribute to Macclesfield becoming a much less appealing place. People need housing but they also
need space.
I disagree in principle with the use of Green Belt land. Green Belt land was identified by our
grandfathers to limit the sprawling conurbations or urban spread and ensure green areas for future
generations to come. We should take a very hard look at our consciences, before anyone passes
Page 146
permission or allows others to build on Green Belt land, which is there for future generations to
enjoy. Brownfield sites should be sought out. Brownfield Sites P 19 Para 6.17 refers to 150 potential
additional dwellings within the town that comprises of part brownfield land. It is hard to understand
how such a low figure can be stated, when looking around the town there are many derelict
buildings such as empty mill buildings with broken windows, which would be ideal for affordable
housing. I would suggest that the council looks at this aspect much more closely before taking such a
drastic step as to encroach upon Green Belt.
I disagree with developing on green belt land
I do not agree with building on the Green Belt on any side of Macclesfield. The surrounding green
land is one of the key attractions of the town. There are so many empty buildings and underused
brownfield sites within the town; these should all be developed (in a way sympathetic to the town's
heritage) before looking at building on the Green Belt. This would also help to improve the
appearance of the town centre. Again, I cannot believe there is a need for so much new housing.
I do not feel qualified to comment adequately on sites A to H.
I do not know the area well enough to comment.
I don't know the area so I will neither agree nor disagree, but the Green Belt should be preserved
wherever possible.
I object strongly to the proposed housing developments on Green Belt land. The lands marked A and
B on your map are in productive agricultural use in the Green Belt.
I object to any use of Green Belt land rather than using pre-existing urban land
I object to the use of any green belt land when there is already derelict and brownfield areas within
the town.
I should much rather that there were no development on Greenbelt land, but if there had to be
some, this area would impinge on the environment less than most others. It would have been
helpful to have a "Neither agree nor disagree" box available in this section of the questionnaire: I do
not favour development in this area of land but do not strongly oppose it.
I strongly disagree as this is green belt and it should be preserved.
I strongly disagree with the building of more cheap, aesthetically limited, mono-designed housing
estates on our Green Belt. Macclesfield has enough housing estates and any more loss of our
pockets of green rural countryside will be of detriment to both the local wildlife and the living
environment we leave for future generations. Also to state the obvious, for the record, housing
estates attract young families which require local education, health care, waste management
services and a transport network able to cope with the extra demand. That is additional pressure on
an infrastructure which is already chronically under funded. When the time comes will you actually
be able to afford to develop the infrastructure to a desirable level which adequately supports an
increase in population? Good to have the objectives but I question the deliverability of them.
I would like to make known my objections to the plan to release any greenbelt land in Macclesfield.
Better use should be made of development of existing brown belt land and the town centre. There is
Greenbelt land between all of the major routes into Macclesfield and this should be valued, not seen
as something to be built on. There are plenty of brown field sites that could be used for housing
leaving the greenbelt intact. Sites A, B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all used as recreational lungs of the town
which link to small internal green spaces. The existing public transport system is far from satisfactory
and therefore extending the town’s boundaries will put more pressure on an already inadequate
service.
I would like to preface my comments on these options by saying that I have a fundamental objection
to ANY of the Green Belt areas around the town being developed, for reasons that I hope I have
made clear in previous answers. However, I recognise that, if we are to provide sufficient new
housing in the future, some development may be inevitable. I notice that that Consultation
document says that all suitable "brownfield" areas have been accounted for, and factored into the
calculations - can we PLEASE be sure that this is the case? There seems to be so many parts of the
Page 147
town where there are "run down" buildings (warehouses, shops etc.), and I would hope that the
"brownfield" review has been as comprehensive as it can possibly be. I have ticked "Agree" for this
option, because I believe that, if any Green Belt has to be sacrificed, it should be done in a cohesive
way, and not using a "scattergun" approach. The options to the north, west and South of the Town
offer the opportunity to develop in a way that delivers a significant proportion of the perceived
needs, in areas where there is already significant infrastructure e.g. schools, transport etc.
I would want to live here - West Macclesfield has the best transport links in town - closest to
motorway, airport, easy to get on A34 for Manchester. West Macclesfield is the most viable option
for commuters.
If developed in conjunction with Sites B and J a link road could be provided between A537Chelford
Road and B 5087
If more houses are to be built this area would be better as it already has a school and leisure
facilities. It could also attract people who work in Stockport or Manchester being on the North side
of Macclesfield.
Improving existing houses and estates should be utilised not more houses.
In addition as with all development proposals in all of the town strategies impact on the setting of
heritage assets should be assessed. I would refer you our guidance on Heritage in local plans: how to
create a sound plan under the NPPF. See http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/importeddocs/f-j/heritage-local-plans.pdf
In general greenbelt sites should not be used until the many brownfield sites around the town have
been redeveloped.
In summary, the main objection to all of the sites A, B, C and J against housing developments is not
only to protect the Green Belt but also being due to the unsustainability of the existing infrastructure
including the roads to cater for increased traffic and schools. Traffic is already a problem on
Prestbury Road, Birtles Road, and Whirley Road and extremely congested on Priory Lane at peak
times. Also in the surrounding roads, there are traffic queues at peak times on Victoria Road and
Fallibroome Road (covering between roundabouts). Traffic is found at the junction of Priory Lane
and Prestbury Road and junction of Bollingbrook Road and Prestbury Road. Most of the roads would
benefit from surface improvements and would have difficulty in coping with any extra traffic. Traffic
conditions above would have a severely detrimental effect on the Local Plan objective to ease traffic
congestion (Access and Transport objective 4). Extra strain will also be placed upon the local schools
in this ward, Fallibroome Academy is already in great demand and Upton Priory primary school has
daily traffic/parking problems at school drop off and collection times(for example council refuge
collection has to be in the afternoon, otherwise they cannot get through due to school traffic
congestion problems). In addition the development in these areas in the plan is contrary to the
strategy for the environment in this draft local plan which state that the Strategy: for the
Environment is : To make the best value of Brownfield and derelict land in the town. To minimise the
development of Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of
surrounding countryside including the Green Belt.
In the Green Belt. This development would make even worse the current traffic problems in the
North-West area of the town.
Infrastructure needs to be in position before any further development
Is it necessary to take Green Belt land before developing redundant properties in an around the
town?
Issues surround infrastructure - road network already has queuing traffic at rush hour peak times
and school closure. Local residents have concerns over pressure on water and electricity supplies.
Issues are already currently raised and any development would compound the issue. Local schools
are full (Primary and Secondary). Location is good for access to Leisure Centre
It is 'only' Green Belt, no other significance in the previous Local Plans
It will destroy the country feel to the residents already living in the area. Having grown up in
Page 148
Macclesfield and made our home and life here due to the beautiful countryside that is around us. I
chose to live next to greenbelt land to ensure that we weren't living on an estate. Our children
benefit from the fields and our dogs are walked there. It is an outrageous proposal and the locals will
object at every stage of your proposal. We like the rural feel and don't want it destroyed. The hedges
are full of wildlife especially declining Sparrows. The ponds and ditches are alive with newts, frogs,
ducks etc. You really must not choose this beautiful area and turn it into housing estates.
Its in the green belt
Just a greedy, lazy, short term waste of green fields. When properties are vacant in the Borough and
the profits will go to large national businesses not local ones
Keep greenbelt
Loss of green space and loss of wild life. These matter very much to people on a spiritual level, just
go to an urban area in North America, both USA and Canada, estates of houses interspaced with
shopping malls is soul destroying, nobody walks anywhere and in a small town like Macclesfield
traffic will be horrendous. I strongly disagree with loss of green belt land.
Mottram St Andrew parish council could not support any development of sites A, B or C and would
not be in favour of developing any of the other sites with the green belt.
Need to provide the maximum number of dwellings for the least number of distinct development
sites
No, Green Belt
No building on Green Belt
No comments to make at this stage, until the following development data is know: Scale, Type,
Location, Timing, Discharge rates and location, Water demand and connexion points. United
Utilities PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity issues if
information details are confirmed
No comments; I do not know this site
No green field development should be considered.
No one wants their neighbourhood to become part of an enlarged town but if the centre is brought
up to standard and work is available locally for the new residents then housing will have to go
somewhere. This needs very careful consideration.
No we do not want to see more housing in such a lovely rural area.
Not convinced of justification for the sprawl into open countryside served only by class B road
funnelling traffic into Macclesfield and Alderley Edge other than on primary road network
Not enough info given to show me exactly what land this is. Need a ' don't know' option. Having
selected one radio button, you have to select either one of the other you can't decide to leave it
blank. Bus services are currently poor to this part of town and Fallibroome school is oversubscribed.
Would lead to excessive pressure on the Broken Cross roundabout which is already a choke point for
traffic in and out of town. This area must have been designated green belt for a reason - I don't
know what that was and so don't feel able to comment more.
Not in favour of any large scale development in this area - important to preserve the countryside /
existing eastern boundary of the town.
Not required! There are lots of empty properties in Macclesfield. There are plenty of brown-field
sites; BAe aerodrome at Woodford is one such area that could accommodate housing that would
sustain the natural population growth of Macclesfield & Poynton. Notice that I say 'natural' rather
than importing masses of people. Also, the pre-disposition for building mansions rather than
affordable housing is a poor utilisation of land. By allowing this the council is pandering to
developers, rather than the needs of the community. It says that we will require 3,500 houses by
2030; at £350,000+ I suspect. This is a travesty, if we need these houses for the natural population
growth, then the bulk of housing should be one and two bedrooms within the existing town. We do
not need 3,500 more large houses, all with one, two, or maybe more cars. The added burden on our
Page 149
roads, schools and general amenities is one that we should not have to endure. The added cost in
terms of losing greenbelt land cannot be allowed. Once this land is gone, it is gone for good, along
with the habitat of our already dwindling wildlife. The council has a duty of stewardship; it is not
their God-given right to grant permission to fat developers to allow them to make a fast, moral less
profit.
Of the areas to west this would be best option contributing a number of houses without urban
sprawl consuming out lying villages.
On Existing Green Belt
Open entry to the country would suffer
Out of main town good for commuters
Out of town so will not cause as much congestion on small roads near the centre. More ways to get
into the centre.
Over the next 20 years it is likely that fuel will become increasingly expensive and safety concerns
will make road transport progressively slower. It is also unlikely that the town will be sufficiently
large to support very frequent public transport to all areas. In addition, agricultural land is likely to
become more valuable both to cut greenhouse emissions by producing more food in the UK and as
food security worries increase. The housing strategy suggests that 3,500 new homes will be required
in Macclesfield and that the majority of these will need to be built on greenbelt land. (How reliable is
this projection given the much lower proportionate increase in the local population?) There must be
a concern that several of these sites are a long way (2 miles + or 30 minutes brisk walk for a healthy
adult) from the town centre, many services, and public transport connections - making high levels of
car use almost inevitable. This is without considering the impact on the greenbelt and where people
are employed - I would argue that Manchester will create far more jobs than Macclesfield meaning a
higher demand for housing close to the Manchester boundary. The objective of encouraging more
people to live in the town centre should be pursued strongly. I write this not as someone who lives
close to any of the proposed greenbelt development sites, but as someone who lives on the edge of
the town centre.
Poor access roads to town centre. Serious consequences for Victoria Road - already overloaded.
Possibility of some development here, but 900 houses seems excessive.
Possibly good idea - but 900 far too many. Could make nature park round quarry
Preserve green belt
Prime farming land, too far out
Proximity of site to leisure centre would justify location
Reasons: Increased traffic on small roads (Whirley Road, Birtles Road) Size of development - far too
big for the existing facilities Former land fill site - unsuitable land Very valuable green space.
Although there are no footpaths across this land, Birtles Lane has a feeling of being in close
proximity to countryside and it would be a shame to lose this in an area where there is little access
to open space.
Recent building in the area has increased the traffic considerably
Remote land too far from the Town Centre.
Residents here are unlikely to support Macclesfield easier to travel to Handforth, Wilmslow, and
Trafford Centre.
Road infrastructure in area would need improving to give good links to main feeder roads e.g.
Chelford Road and Priory Lane
Road structures inadequate for an additional 900 houses + would encroach on the village status of
Henbury.
Scope for major road congestion unless good well thought out junctions with main roads, otherwise
a nightmare at peak times
Seems sensible but the effect on transport links through to the town centre and the east of
Macclesfield is a concern as is the loss of Green Belt
Page 150
Site within green belt and I believe that non green belt land should be used in preference. If
greenbelt land is to be used then suitable road access must be provided before any development is
permitted. Development of any greenbelt areas around the town would cause an unnecessary
degree of devastation to the local fauna and flora. This land is a considerable distance from the town
centre so is likely to cause a dormitory estate and only have a limited beneficial effect on the
businesses in the town centre
Small impact on country access and leisure. Reasonable road access. Reasonable building land.
Strongly disagree that ANY Green Belt land is built on.
Substantial infrastructure would be required. Not only affecting these areas but out lying areas.
Must be biodiversity present on these sites
Sufficiently on outskirts of Macc
Suitable. It would not be harming many people's environment or outlook.
Support the release from the Green Belt as it: Has good relationship with existing defined urban
area; is within proximity to the town centre and associated services and adjacent to some of the
town's education facilities; robust development boundaries can be created via the field patterns and
associated vegetated borders ; release of the land would not result in Macclesfield coalescing with
another settlement
Sustainability and protecting the green belt is a stated aim therefore existing town sites and
brownfield sites must be developed first. Any sites which have had a longstanding development
proposal should be next such as at Tytherington and South Macclesfield. The remaining sites are all
green belt and deserve a higher protection but obviously some of these sites must be given to
development-one of the main criteria for choosing the sites should be their sustainability which is
determined primarily by their existing and proposed transport links to the town centre and its
transport hubs. This is mainly a function of the distance of the site from a central town position
which I would take as the bus station (which is within the Town centre and a few hundred yards
from the Railway Station.)
That is a very attractive parcel of land, and it would be good to preserve some green space between
the Cornish estate and area B
The adjacencies are to the secondary school, rugby club and leisure centre so local residents will not
be too adversely affected by development. Less environmental impact in this area than some others,
but still not ideal to be building on greenbelt land if this can be avoided.
The area is within the Green Belt and should not be built on.
The availability of plenty of brown field sites in the area mitigates against using Greenfield sites.
The building on green belt and agricultural land is a disaster for the future of the country. Brown
field sites should be first in the queue, including town centre sites and old mills
The development of parts of this area would have minimum impact on accessible countryside and
provided the visual impact on existing residential areas is minimal I would agree with some
development here. Road access is also good.
The development of these sites would result in the loss of land that lies within the open countryside
and the loss of land with the specific landscape character; higher farms and woods as identified
within the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Furthermore, site A lies
adjacent to an Identified Site of Biological Importance and so could have an impact on the delicate
habitat and ecosystem within that area.
The figures on page 12 do not stack up and do not give proof that 3,500 homes are needed and must
be built during the next 27 years. More land should be put to agriculture to feed the perceived
growing population
The first priority must be to re-develop brown field sites, of which there are many in the town
centre, before any consideration is given to building on the green belt that will close the green gap
between Macclesfield and Prestbury. The green belt in the area is of high quality agricultural land
and the area to the North West of Macclesfield is recognised as being of special county value. I could
Page 151
therefore not support any development of sites A, B or C and would not be in favour of developing
any of the other sites within the green belt. There is magnificent countryside surrounding
Macclesfield and more needs to be done in developing the town centre to open up the views that
can be seen.
The Green belt should be protected and the council and its development partners should be looking
at smaller, sustainable developments rather than large destructive expensive infrastructure projects
The green belt should only be built on in exceptional circumstances. Peripheral development
removes the asset for future generations, compromises sustainability (increasing car journeys) and
fights with the vision for a vibrant town centre. With so much derelict property, unused buildings
and doubt about the target number of dwellings, there is no justification for building on green belt.
The number of proposed houses is too great. I fear that reducing the "Green Belt" will not stop. Take
away some of it this time and then a bit more next time and so on until it is all gone. You need to
produce evidence that you have looked seriously at the existing potential within the current
footprint.
There are already schools in the area which are oversubscribed, poor roads and major congestion.
More houses will only cause more problems. These are the only green areas nearby by which should
stay.
There are no strong reasons to build on green belt land, and the only people who will benefit from
this are property developers and their friends.
There is already intensive development in this area; therefore more housing would not change the
nature of the area. Furthermore, there is a land gap of some miles between this site and the next
settlement, Alderley Edge, and this gap would be maintained by the proposed development.
There is little ability for more traffic to safely navigate Birtles Road, where it is single carriageway in
many places and is also used for parking by parents collecting children from Whirley School. The
junction of Birtles Road and Whirley Road is also not safe to have another 900 - 1800 cars travelling a
day. This is also green belt land and adds to the feel of Macclesfield being near the peaks. Birtles
Road and Whirley Road are also used as a cut through to Astra Zeneca and there has already been a
large increase in cars due to the on going building of Jasmine Park
There should be a general presumption against use of land in the green belt
They are all potential development sites, but how much and what type of development is key.
This appears to be a sensible area for development, but transport links would be problematic given
the difficulty of road access to the town centre (road past hospital troublesome, Broken Cross
roundabout already overloaded). Access to key amenities such as the town centre, station, and
supermarkets from this site will be poor without investment in roads.
This area has already been spoiled by existing development
This area has enough traffic problems without a further 900 homes bringing along another 1000+
cars.
This area has had housing and leisure facility development in the last 25 years and should be suitable
for further development.
This area is within the Green Belt. The Council must try harder to identify Brown Field sites that do
not extend into the Green Belt.
This area should be developed for leisure activities and the requisite infrastructure put in
This has always been part of the green belt and it should remain so.
This is a well established area comprising sports and recreational facilities and a major school and
the extension of Macclesfield in a westerly direction at this point would tend to lead to a degree of
coalescence between Macclesfield and Henbury as well as Prestbury. An extension at this point
would be remote from the town centre and would rely for access on what are, basically, country
roads and Priory Lane which is quite busy, especially at peak periods.
This is beautiful countryside and should be kept that way. DO NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT
This is beautiful greenbelt land and should NOT be developed.
Page 152
This is Green Belt - 'brownfield' sites should be the priority.
This is Green Belt including agricultural land. Totally unsuitable. SHOULD BE REJECTED
This is green belt land. The schools that serve this area (primary and secondary) are already over
subscribed. If more houses are put here where will the children in those (900) houses go to school?
Note there are allotments to the North of Birtles Road - on no account should plans be made to build
on these. If there is surplus land in this area - why not put new allotments in? Development of this
site would increase the traffic on the surrounding residential and rural roads.
This is greenbelt land and should not be built on
This is in the green belt. It would be a big development I would be worried about an increase in
traffic on the A 537 and B5087 both of which are very busy during rush hour
This is one of the better options due to proximity to the leisure facilities, schools and transport links.
This is part of the green belt and it is important to keep it so to maintain the boundary of
Macclesfield and its "visible landscape setting"
This is very rural and productive agricultural land and is in Green Belt, disconnected from any
services and not served by adequate roads
This land and all sites in this proposal are green belt and should be kept that way. East Cheshire is a
beautiful area due to the greenbelt country side. We have chosen to live in a village outside the
town of Macclesfield surrounded by greenbelt for this reason. Myself and my family strongly
disagree with the development of any greenbelt land around Macclesfield.
This option along with B and C should be a last resort for housing supply. This option extends the
urban sprawl a bit too much.
This region has been subject to significant house building already with the Drummond Way estate.
Similarly, Jasmine Park and The Greenside are one large housing estate. Let’s leave some
countryside. Incidentally, planning permission to fill the old Sandy lane Quarry which adjoins this site
was given on the permission that the land would be turned over to the public as a natural amenity,
but I seem to be the only person who ever saw an artists impression.
This seems a particularly precious piece of green belt. Development would require significant
infrastructure improvements to ensure additional traffic does not impose even more congestion on
already over-burdened surrounding roads.
This site would deliver a large number of homes and has a proportion of schools locally.
This would mean a further sprawl of the town to the west and destruction of green belt.
Too far from anything else - such as shops, schools etc - why suggest building homes here when the
schools on this side of town have been relocated?
Too far from Macclesfield town centre and too many houses in green belt. Pushes the centre of mass
of Macclesfield outwards when we can in fill areas
Too remote away from the town.
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual amenity - this used to be an asbestos dump in
this area so it isn't safe to build homes on. There are protected species such as owls, bats and rare
newts living in this area
Unless moved to "J" and leaving Greenfield along B5087
Unsure, but the houses would be near leisure centre, schools and would be good for families
Use Brownfield sites not the Green Belt. Stop developers 'land banking' and force them to develop
the land in less time than the current allowed time of three years and often extended beyond that.
Use empty derelict buildings before rebuilding
Valuable green belt.
Very strongly disagree
Violation of green belt land
We need our Green Belts/ Woodland - plants, birds and animals must be protected
We should preserve the green belt.
Page 153
Well located for schools and leisure facilities. Access requires improvement
What sort of housing envisaged? Must be affordable for first time buyers.
What will the burden be on schools?
Why no graduation of agreement? Agree on the basis that this area already has a 'mixed' economy
of homes and other organisations such as schools and leisure centre. Not therefore exclusively
residential in nature. No change to the 'character' of the area. Big infrastructure problems however
You have pledged under your Environment Objective to minimise development on Greenfield sites
and value the Green Belt. This Site violates those pledges.
You should be looking at all of these sites with the priority for development being on non-green Belt
land in the first instance. You don’t need to consider more business uses; we have loads of business
space which is not used at the moment. Good quality, affordable housing for first-time buyers to get
on the housing ladder should be the priority in order to create a community and economic
infrastructure which will support Macclesfield.
Page 154
Q3. Site B: Land west of Priory Lane (Housing)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site B in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
60.8% of respondents answered this question
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site B
Additional housing would affect road congestion into town at peak times
Agree for small number of houses
Agree on the basis that there will be limited change to the character of the area. Big infrastructure
problems however.
All these developments would generate a huge increase in traffic on Prestbury road which is already
Already a very heavily populated side of town with poor road links to the other side of town.
release as a number of Development Options perform most of the purposes of Green Belt
particularly true of A, G, H and I. A large number of the options are also questionable in terms of
their deliverability, particularly where there is a need for significant new infrastructure to support
development as well as the issue of existing occupancy particularly B and I (the latter also
constrained by an SBI on site).
Another estate off Priory Lane! You have got to be joking!
Another good proposal
still leave greenspace to boundaries of Alderley Edge woodland
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site B
Page 155
Area already built up close by.
Area B West of Priory Lane similar points to Area A. Why should Rugby Club relocate as it represents
appropriate development in the Green Belt? Where would replacement be located; access into town
centre would use Prestbury Road or Victoria Road; remote from public transport and services. Green
Belt fulfils function of urban containment and preventing sprawl.
As for A, development here would have little visual impact on surrounding areas and access is good.
As for Site A In addition it is not so many years ago that the rugby club relocated to their current site.
Why would they need moving and where would they go to?
B and C, I somehow find it hard to believe that 660 homes would ever be approved on land close to
Prestbury.
Better for mixed use. Should retain some green/sports fields.
Better than option A in that it would exit out on to a main road rather than into another residential
area. However, still have the problem that the local primary and secondary schools are already
oversubscribed.
Building here will not encroach into other residential areas
But South West Link Road should be extended north/north-eastwards to Site C.
Contradictory information was given during the early consultation with representatives of the local
community. We were initially told this land was available, and at the next meeting that the Rugby
club were opposed. My view is that rugby pitches are more mobile than housing and it should be
considered for development.
Currently sports clubs in this area, this site should be considered for more leisure facilities.
Destruction of lovely farming land
Development of this area will extend an existing housing area and the future residents will be able to
benefit from the sports facilities at Macclesfield Leisure Centre and the educational facilities at
Fallibroome School and its feeder primary schools. Its development will not affect the green space to
the north of Prestbury Road, thus still bringing the countryside into the town. Macclesfield Rugby
Club should be re-located to the new stadium to be shared with MTFC in the SMDA. If this is not
possible then they could be re-located to site F off London Road.
Develop the site for housing but not on Greenbelt.
DO NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT
Do not know the site but believe this would impact on the roads and school in the Upton Priory area.
The roads can not take any more traffic and Fallibroome School is over subscribed.
altered in exceptional circumstances vital for present and future generations. 2) Brown field sites
should be used for housing. 3) Preserve green open spaces. Green lungs are vital between areas of
Enough development has occurred in this direction already
Excellent site - non-intrusive, linked to Alderley/ Wilmslow & S Manchester industrial enterprise
Farm and green belt land. Leave alone.
Feels more a continuation of existing recent development than decimating greenbelt
Good infrastructure already in place, would need to improve junction of Priory lane, Prestbury Road
though
Green Belt
Green Belt - and what is meant by 'currently'?
Page 156
Green belt land
Green belt land used by the rugby club and is a good open space
Green Belt land? Must be maintained
Green belt must be protected. The Rugby Club is suitably located near the Leisure Centre.
Green belt. Please do not build on any green belt sites, in particular sites with ancient woodland or
Green Belt. Relocation of Rugby Club - where to...more greenbelt?? Local road junctions are already
very busy and dangerousGreen field site. Should remain undeveloped
I am more dubious about this area, as building on it would lessen the effect of leaving an urban area
as one headed out towards Alderley Edge. It would create an impression of urban sprawl.
I believe it makes more sense to develop in the centre of Macclesfield
need space.
I don't know the area so I will neither agree nor disagree, but the Green Belt should be preserved
wherever possible.
I object strongly to the proposed housing developments on Green Belt land. The lands marked A and
B on your map are in productive agricultural use in the Green Belt.
the town.
I think this would be a reasonable site
and therefore extending the town’ boundaries will put more pressure on an already inadequate
service.
Page 157
I would want to live here - West Macclesfield has the best transport links in town - closest to
motorway, airport, easy to get on A34 for Manchester. West Macclesfield is the most viable option
for commuters.
If developed in conjunction with Sites B and J a link road could be provided between A537Chelford
Road and B 5087
been redeveloped.
Environment is : To make the best value of Brownfield and derelict land in the town. To minimise the
development of Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of
In the Green Belt. This development would make even worse the current traffic problems in the
North-West area of the town, particularly on Prestbury Road and at the junction with Priory Lane.
Is a consideration but would prefer that this is kept to develop sporting activities and community
centre due to locality to sports clubs and the leisure centre.
Is it necessary to take Green Belt land before developing redundant properties in and around the
town?
Is the site in mind for the new club better than present which is under major power lines
and school closure. Local schools are full (Primary and Secondary). Location is good for access to
Leisure Centre. Cannot assume Rugby Club will move.
It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have to be a strong
case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage more
people to live in the town centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2 (p10)
includes improving connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I draw your attention to
Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years awaiting the availability of
funds to repair retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has been set for the execution of
these repairs.
It is 'only' Green Belt, no other significance in the previous Local Plans
It will turn a quiet, beautiful area into a horrible over crowded dirty estate. The area will go from
minimal crime level to very high levels WE don’t want this. We love walking along the fields to
Page 158
Prestbury and seeing all the wildlife in all seasons. We (all my neighbours and I) are STRONGLY
AGAINST these plans. Please please don’t build on this land. Our children are safe to play out on the
small estate because we have a stable and caring community around us. Adding nearly 400 houses
would destroy that because we won’t know all these people or their possibly dangerous history. I
believe that the children will lose out on the wildlife of the Bollin fields. The children regularly learn
about the tadpoles and rare birds that are seen every day. I believe it would destroy any faith we as
a community have in the council. Please don’t do this.
Keep greenbelt
Loss of green space and loss of wild life. I strongly disagree with loss of green belt land.
Mottram St Andrew parish council could not support any development of sites A, B or C and would
NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO IMPINGE ON PRESTBURY.
No, Green Belt
Location, Timing, Discharge rates and location, Water demand and connexion points. United Utilities
PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity issues if
No green field development should be considered.
Not convinced of justification for the sprawl into open countryside served only by class B road
funnelling traffic into Macclesfield and Alderley Edge other than on primary road network. Question
what happens to existing uses such as school, leisure centre and playing fields. Access issues given
nature of road network
Not enough info given to show me exactly what land this is. Bus services are currently poor to this
part of town and Fallibroome school is oversubscribed. Would lead to excessive pressure on the
Broken Cross roundabout and or the West Park/Victoria Road roundabout, both of which are already
choke points for traffic in and out of town. This area must have been designated green belt for a
reason - I don't know what that was and so don't feel able to comment more.
Not in favour of any large scale development in this area - important to preserve the countryside /
existing eastern boundary of the town.
Not in SHLAA?
On edge of Macc, close to Fallibroome School, plus points
On the edge of Macc & close to Fallibroome School so more ideal for community
Only if a suitable alternative site for the Rugby Club is found AND the junction of Priory Lane and
Prestbury Road is improved to manage the additional traffic - it needs to be a roundabout.
Only if the Rugby Club relocated but to where? This would take up space elsewhere
Out of main town good for commuters
Page 159
the town centre.
Preserve the green belt
Prestbury road is already a busy and dangerous road without more vehicles entering and exiting.
Reasonable infrastructure in place and local school nearby - safe travelling for children. Where does
rugby club go?
Relocate the rugby club again and build on the athletics track?
Residents here are unlikely to support Macclesfield easier to travel to Handforth, Wilmslow, Trafford
Centre.
Roads are already inadequate. Additional housing here would start to encroach on Prestbury
Rugby club has already moved once; could put northern bypass through here to Tytherington
though!!
Sacrifices sports facility
Where would rugby club relocate
Same as for Site C
Scope for major road congestion unless good well thought-out junctions with main roads, otherwise
In addition I fear that to build here would detract from the attractiveness of Macclesfield to
approaching visitors and would also impact adversely on Alderley Edge.
Seems sensible but the effect on transport links through to the town centre and the east of
Small impact on country access and leisure. Reasonable road access. Reasonable building land.
Smaller housing development - much more suitable. Macclesfield would benefit from lots of smaller
developments, rather than one or two big ones. We don't want rabbit warrens (and neither do the
prospective new home owners), we want smaller, more community friendly, more desirable housing
developments.
Still using too much green belt land but if the rugby club could be redeveloped at least it wouldn't all
be covered with housing.
Suitable. It would probably not be disadvantaging anybody.
Support Area B site could deliver around 300 dwellings. If only the two sites not in the Green Belt (D
and H) are delivered, they would only provide 600 dwellings. Para 84 of the NPPF states when
reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take account of the need to
Page 160
promote sustainable patterns of development. This site is in a sustainable location, it is located
adjacent to existing development to the north, south and east.
Support the release from the Green Belt as it: Has good relationship with existing defined urban
area, is within proximity to the town centre and associated services and adjacent to some of the
town's education facilities ; robust development boundaries can be created via the field patterns
and associated vegetated borders ; release of the land would not result in Macclesfield coalescing
with another settlement ; release of option B and the Rugby Club has the potential benefit of
delivering improved facilities for the club elsewhere within and around Macclesfield
The current co-existence of Leisure Centre, school and rugby club provides a focus which is an asset
to the town.
The existing local facilities are in decline and need major renewal
can be seen.
The rugby club in Macclesfield was already moved once many years ago, why does this facility have
to move when it provides so much entertainment for so many local people and is in such a lovely
area. LEAVE THIS AREA ALONE.
There are already leisure centres, private housing and playing fields.
There are no strong reasons to build on green belt land, and the only people who will benefit from
this are property developers and their friends.
There is already intensive development in this area; therefore more housing would not change the
nature of the area. Furthermore, there is a land gap of some miles between this site and the next
settlement, Alderley Edge, and this gap would be maintained by the proposed development.
There is already some development there
There is not a great deal to recommend the Priory estate so more housing is not likely to be
detrimental
Page 161
This area has had housing and leisure facility development in the last 25 years and should be suitable
for further development.
This area should be developed for leisure activities and the requisite infrastructure put in - the
Rugby Club is a successful venture for all ages (just see their junior program) and should not be
moved
This is Green Belt including agricultural land. Totally unsuitable. SHOULD BE REJECTED
This is in the green belt. It would be a big development, I would be worried about an increase in
traffic on the A 537 and B5087 both of which are very busy during rush hour
This is just increasing urban sprawl
This land is, within Prestbury Parish, is in Green Belt. A representative of Macclesfield Rugby Club
stated unequivocally that the Rugby Club did not have plans to move from its present premises.
This option along with A and C should be a last resort for housing supply. This option extends the
This should be left as a buffer zone
This would be inappropriate for the same reasons outlined above in relation to Site A. This would
require relocation of the Rugby Club which may or may not be required having regard to the
investment in their existing site.
Too disconnected with the rest of Macclesfield. Poor access roads. No capacity at the Fallibroome
Academy for any more children.
Too much traffic and schools full
Too much traffic will be created and the schools cannot cope with any more pupils.
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual amenity - there are protected species such as
owls, bats and rare newts living in this area
Unless moved to "J" and leaving Greenfield along B5087
Unsure
Use for leisure
Very strongly disagree
We need our Green Belts/ Woodland ; plants, birds, animals must be protected
Whilst I refer to my previous comment about Green Belt land, if there is to be a necessary reduction
in green Belt, this offers one of the best locations. It is close to schools and leisure centre and has
good transport access. I understand however that schools are full, so another 300 houses may create
its own problems.
Why does the Rugby Club need to relocate? Do they want to or is this just another candidate for this
SMDA the council are so set on.
Page 162
Worried at this. Why move the Rugby Club? And where to?
Would seem suitable for development if the rugby club is relocated
You must be joking! The rugby club has moved once already and is now in the perfect place.
land in the first instance. You don’t need to consider more business use - we have loads of business
Page 163
Q3. Site C: Land north of Prestbury Lane (Housing)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site C in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site C
The small network of roads surrounding this area can barely sustain the volume of traffic currently
using them. An addition of 360 houses would only burden the roads further. 2. The surrounding
primary schools are full to capacity and would not be able to support the massive influx of school
aged children linked to such a development. 3. This woodland area is proven to be used as a
passageway for animals from woodland to riverside. This development would upset the natural
habitat of a number of endangered and treasured species.
Absolutely ideal for housing
Access Rd already busy with two schools. I live 100 yards from the site and feed badgers nightly (also
foxes) Development of this site would seriously affect these animals
Adjacent to the key green tract of the town - Riverside Park. This would compromise this important
resource.
Additional housing would affect road congestion into town at peak times
Adjacent to ancient woodland
Again, beautiful countryside. It lies adjacent to Ancient Woodland and should be preserved at all
costs. DO NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT
Again, don't agree with the incursion into the Green Belt, nor the removal of rural surroundings from
Upton Wood.
All these developments would generate a huge increase in traffic on Prestbury road which is already
Already spoiled
Already surrounded with residential housing. It will compact access issues.
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site C
Page 164
Although we are fortunate to live in a county with lots of green space, once its gone its gone for
ever. I personally do not see the need for a housing development here or anywhere else in the
immediate vicinity. Just so someone can make a large amount of money. There are all ready vacant
properties that were developer built but have never been lived in. We know that developers
encourage people to borrow beyond their means and especially in this economic climate who would
benefit? If the council think that Macc. needs more housing, I think the best way would be to do it in
a way that involves all the infrastructure that goes with developments (roads, schools Etc.) to be in
one place. Not squeezed in here and there.
Ancient woodland
Ancient woodlands should not be compromised
Any building here would cause access problems and the schools would be over populated.
Area C North of Prestbury Road landscape impact issues with this option on edge of the Bollin Valley.
Possible coalescence with Willowmead area of Prestbury intervisibility of the two settlements
eroding the Green Belt function in this locality. Limited possibility of public transport access.
Area is a haven for wildlife. The already dangerous Prestbury Rd does not need increase in road
traffic
Area should be kept as green within access to R Bollin
As a resident I am extremely unhappy to hear of these plans. 360 houses are far too many, the local
area is already congested enough and local schools are already over subscribed. The fields are a
beautiful thing and this will destroy pretty much all of the natural surroundings, including wildlife!
People have chosen to live in this area because of how it currently stands; this will upset a lot of
people and seems a very extreme plan!
As a resident of Abbey Road since 2005, I decided to move to this location for its relatively peaceful
surroundings, in particular the Bollin Valley to the rear of my property. The thought of these
surroundings being changed by such a major development is frankly heart breaking. A further major
concern for our family has been the increasing number of drivers who already speed down the
sweeping bend of Abbey Road as though it is some sort of 'race-track' (mostly residents I might
add!!). We already don't allow our children to play in front of our house/on the frontage of Abbey
Rd for this very reason, I shudder to think of the consequences that 360 additional homes will in my
view inevitably result in. I would also point out that for an hour or so at school start and finish times
the Westminster Rd end of Abbey Rd (due to Bollinbrook School traffic) is already a no go area
already, the congestion being comparable to anything in the area. Again the consequences of
additional traffic etc would be dramatic in an area where access routes are already limited. I can
perhaps best summarise my view on Site C as this - I'll move the moment it becomes a reality, and
I'd hoped to stay in this house where we have brought both our children home to from birth, it
would certainly break their hearts just as it would my wife and I. PLEASE DO NOT MOVE THIS
DEVELOPMENT FORWARD, I FOR ONE WILL FIGHT TOOTH AND NAIL ALL THE WAY ON THIS ISSUE
AND I CAN ASSURE YOU I WILL NOT BE ALONE!!!
Leave ancient woodland alone
As previous this land is part of an ancient woodland site which has many species of wildlife including
badgers, foxes and numerous birds, thus building here will destroy their habitat. The proposed site
borders with the Riverside Park which the council have spent money and time encouraging wildlife
to live within which will be destroyed by building
As residents on Abbey Road we feel strongly about you building new houses at the end of it and
turning Abbey Road into a main road, there is enough traffic using it at the moment as it is, we don't
need any more cars polluting the environment that we live in. We have a young child who at the
moment loves playing out with her friends, but if you give the go ahead for the building of the new
Page 165
houses, I will not be able to allow my child out to play as this road will become to dangerous place.
And not to forget that we have a school that is used by very young children, another reason for not
building these houses. KEEP OUR CHILDREN SAFE! We are also strongly against you destroying the
beautiful wildlife that live in the neighbouring fields.
As you acknowledge in the consultation document, Upton Woods are designated as Ancient
Woodland - records suggesting that they date from at least 1621. Looking at Google Earth they
would also appear to be one of the only significant pieces of woodland, ancient or otherwise, left in
the immediate vicinity of Macclesfield. To build 360 houses in the adjacent fields would I believe
lead to their early demise especially as a home to a wide variety of flora and fauna. As many other
contributors have also pointed out the woods are home to many species of wildlife. The woods are
also home to the endangered English Bluebell, the show of which in the spring is truly superb. The
woods will continue to be a magnet for young children , with possible serious consequences .The
lower part of the woods , where the stream runs down to the Bollin , have many very dangerous
areas , not least a derelict dam , and the exit for a storm drain followed by a steep ravine with
eroding banks . (A child was killed here some years ago when a sandy overhang collapsed.)
Furthermore the ground around the stream is extremely marshy in places, almost like quicksand.
Quite apart from the many other valid objections raised by others, I believe that Site C should most
definitely remain Green Belt on the above grounds alone.
Astonished that the proposed plans include the development for residential housing on ANY
greenbelt or Greenfield site. The local authority is barely able to fund its normal Servicing duties
especially the highways department. A housing development first time buyers may not afford due to
high deposit mortgage conditions. Poor and slow sales of occupied houses affected similarly.
Banks/building societies unwilling or unable to provide funds for house purchase or local businesses.
None of this is likely to change in foreseeable future. Development will draw Macclesfield close to
Prestbury. Access problems to site: Prestbury Rd, or via Abbey Rd to Westminster Rd are already
crowded and will greatly increase flow of traffic onto Westminster Rd. Traffic will have to pass Kings
School entrance and Sainsbury roundabout where there are already significant traffic delays and
high volume pedestrian use. Additional traffic volume will add noise and disturbance and create
additional risk to school children at Bollinbrook Primary school. There are problems due to lack of
road gritting in winter resulting in damage to property and personal injury including the roads
Bollinbrook Primary School and Kings School are located on. Roads and pavements are in little better
condition than many 3rd world countries, patched temporarily at best. Many residences currently
enjoy an open aspect view to the fields and countryside. This provides a quality of life and
enjoyment. There would be a detrimental value to properties, financially and visually, considerable
loss of privacy and overlooking. Development would be detrimental to the character, style and wellbeing of the current housing at Abbey and Wetherall Roads and access routes to the proposed
housing. At all rural sites there is always extensive wildlife loss when development occurs including
at all the Green belt sites. The range of wildlife at Upton Wood fields is enormous. The proposal can
not predetermine additional usage and requirement of utilities demand, police, fire, ambulance
access or schooling nor the disastrous consequences of the loss of prime Cheshire land to buildings.
Bad access onto busy Prestbury Road. Effect on wildlife that live on land including pond life and bats
that forage in this area.
Before dealing with the overwhelming negative impact of housing at site C and the lack of evidence
to support the sustainability of this proposal I question that this consultation does demonstrate that
all reasonable options have been considered. Firstly, as mentioned above I feel there are more
brownfield and non greenbelt sites that could be developed and existing empty housing. Secondly, if
Green belt really is required, no evidence has been provided to explain why these sites have been
selected over other areas of the greenbelt. For example why not develop fields between Prestbury
Lane and the Silk Road. This site is not an area of Special County Value where as site C is. It has
better access to roads and rail links into and out of Macclesfield. The habitat is already fragmented
by roads and housing etc. Developing surrounding villages rather than adding to urban sprawl will
Page 166
ensure more facilities to outlying communities and ensure all residents within Macclesfield have
easy access to the countryside. I cannot understand why site C is even being considered over a
number of other potential areas. Housing at site C would have a devastating impact for the following
reasons:- 1. Infrastructure - the roads from this area (Prestbury Road and Bollinbrook / Westminster
Road) are already heavily used. These roads are jammed at rush hour with a journey from Kennedy
Avenue to town taking in the region of 15 - 20 mins. They are dangerous roads for both cars and
pedestrians with 11 accidents taking place in this area with 5 at the top of Bollinbrook Road. The
pavements on Prestbury Road in particular are inadequate and extremely narrow. As a mother of 2
young children one in a push chair and the other walking I find walking into town scary at times with
large lorries coming past at speed within a couple of foot of me and my children where the roads
and pavement are so narrow. Also pulling out from driveways and roads on to Prestbury Road is
difficult and (again with the level of traffic) dangerous thing to do. Westminster Road is also another
dangerous road with cars parked on both side of the road from employees at Sainsbury’s and college
pupils. Children run across the road, more traffic on these roads is going to increase the likelihood of
serious accidents. Development particularly at site B will also add to this situation. The development
at site C and also Site A and B will put extra pressure on our schools. Most of the primary schools in
this area are fully subscribed (with a number of them having criteria other than catchment area as
their admission criteria) and the secondary school is heavily over subscribed. For 2012 there were
240 place and 310 applicants put this as their first choice. The schools in this area simply cannot take
more pupils. There is no other secondary school that is within easy reach. 2. Heritage, Landscape,
Biodiversity and Geodiversity - Site C is Greenbelt an area of special County Value. It includes ancient
woodland and an important pond. The woodland trust describes housing developments next to
ancient woods as 'neighbours from hell' because of the impact on the surrounding habitat which in
turn impacts on the woods themselves. Site C is an import piece of agricultural land (not only for its
use for agriculture but as a corridor between the river Bollin, pond and woods. The pond is used by
geese, ducks (with many clutches of ducklings being raised there), newts, frogs, herons and many
other birds. Natural England is a sponsor of the million pond project. There are very few healthy
ponds left and this is a healthy pond so let us preserve it! The trees and surrounding area are
inhabited by owls, swifts, bats, pheasants, foxes and the field is used by all these creatures. Building
on it would not only ruin the woodlands but also the habitat for all these creatures. The field itself is
part of our rural heritage with ancient field systems and hedgerows. 3. Impact on current residents.
Houses that border this field will have a loss of privacy and potential devaluation of their property.
The field is higher than the surrounding houses so gardens and houses of existing properties would
inevitably be over looked. Many of the current residents in this area are elderly, there are a large
number of homes and accommodation specifically for the elderly. The impact of the development
and the increase in the traffic and noise during the build and the longer term increase in overall
traffic will have a negative impact on all residents but particularly the elderly population who moved
to this locality for the peace and quiet.
Building on site C will be a disaster & destroy the character of Upton /Prestbury road - the fields are
beautiful countryside loved by the local community, plus it will bring the edge of the town too close
to Prestbury and Prestbury will soon no longer be a village. Also, the Bollin Valley will be ruined by
more housing looking down upon it. Don't build any more houses near the Bollin Valley - this land is
the gap between Macc & Prestbury, Prestbury is already starting to be destroyed by those hideous
mansions you've accepted back handers to give permission for - NO MORE DESTRUCTION OF OUR
COUNTRYSIDE HERE
But South West Link Road should be extended north/north-eastwards to Site C. Preserve open space
between Macclesfield and Prestbury.
Close to 2 LWS (Riverside Park LNR and Tytherington Wood ancient woodland, Upton Wood AW)
Contains an ASCV
CURRENTLY PROVIDES OUTSTANDING VIEWS AND IS THE "LUNGS" OF OUR TOWN. DEVELOPMENT
Page 167
HERE IS UNNECESSARY AND UNWISE GIVEN THE DIFFICULT TERRAIN.
Definitely no development. Essential for green Belt between Macclesfield and Prestbury. To build so
near ancient woodland is unforgiveable.
Despite the statement in the environment strategy that the Green Belt is valued, all but two of the
proposed sites for development are in Green Belt and the area C , if developed, would close up the
gap between Macclesfield and Prestbury, contravening Green Belt purposes.
Developing this site would potentially join Prestbury to Macclesfield. It is important to maintain
distinct communities and avoid urban sprawl. Green space between the areas is important for both
Macclesfield and Prestbury residents. Green Belt land.
Development in area C would need to preserve Macclesfield Footpath 21 and Prestbury FP 30 which
cross this area. It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have
to be a strong case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to
encourage more people to live in the town centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre.
Objective 2 (p10) includes improving connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I draw
your attention to Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years awaiting
the availability of funds to repair retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has been set for
the execution of these repairs.
Development in this area would effectively join the village of Prestbury with Macclesfield which
would contravene Green Belt principles.
Development of land between Bollinbarn/Bollinbrook Estates would reduce the area between the
edge of Macclesfield and the edge of Prestbury to a mere few hundred yards. Access onto Prestbury
Road - this is already a very busy road and access to a large excess of extra traffic on the limited area
that is available could result in a potentially very dangerous area. Access through the Bollinbrook
Estate would increase traffic past the Bollinbrook Junior School on a relatively narrow road and feed
much more traffic onto Westminster Road which at busy times is already badly congested from the
Cemetery gates to the Sainsbury roundabout
Development will be totally destructive to a very valuable band of green belt land down to the river
Disagree with building on this area of natural beauty. NIMBY alert!
should be used for housing. 3) Preserve green open spaces. Green areas vital between areas of
Doubtless developers would like the opportunity to build more monstrous mansions here, but it is
thoroughly unsuitable.
Excellent location for more social housing.
Fervently disagree, destroying woodland that has been there for hundreds of years, is home to so
many important animals that are important to the Bollin valley too. It would cause congestion to the
Bollinbrook area and dangers to children in the area. It would make Abbey road extremely busy with
road traffic and congestion outside the school on Abbey road endangering children going to and
from school and playing .It would make Prestbury road extremely congested and no doubt used as a
cut through from Prestbury road to Abbey road again endangering children. It would cause the
house prices to plummet in the area due to the view and landscape being destroyed, unnecessary
pressure being put on the existing landowners to sell land that has been theirs for generations, you
will be destroying all the hard work that the Bollin Valley project aimed to achieve and all the
millions spent on it by destroying some of the most important wood that thrives with wildlife
important to the eco system. Animals that are already endangered flourish due to little disturbance,
badgers, bats, polecats, snakes, newts, red legged partridge, herons pheasant, rabbits, owls,
buzzards, falcons, sparrows, kingfishers- all these animals all live along the stream in this wood that
Page 168
runs to the Bollin.
Fill in land
Green Belt
Green belt adjacent to ancient woodland
Green belt AND Ancient Woodland. This area deserves some protection!
Green Belt including the Bollin Valley Way and adjoining ancient woodland. Would join up two
separate built areas (Prestbury and Macclesfield) rather than allowing them to retain their own
identities. Totally unsuitable.
Green belt land
Green Belt must be protected: this is particularly the case in view of the proximity of ancient
woodland there and the attendant wildlife. Prestbury Road is already extremely busy and the
infrastructure would not cope with additional traffic and services required.
Green Belt needs to be maintained to separate Prestbury from Macclesfield
Green Belt site needs protecting
Green field with insufficient infrastructure planned to support this growth. Abbey Road is already a
"Car Park" and a hazardous one when it's start / close time at Bollinbrook Primary - this road can't
cope with being made into a major thoroughfare to a big new estate.
Greenbelt land. Local road junctions are already very busy and dangerousI agree with smaller scale proposals.
I am concerned about the location of Site C, specifically in relation to: - access via Abbey Road,
currently a quiet road with minimal traffic - pressure on school places in the area
I am opposed to any development that might encroach on or endanger woodland - ancient or
otherwise.
need space.
I disagree because the extra housing will create too much extra traffic. Abbey Road is a narrow and
bendy road with a primary school. There would be congestion at the end of Abbey Road at the
junction with Westminster Road, at the Sainsbury's roundabout at the end of Westminster Road
which is already very busy, at the junction of Bollinbrook Road and Prestbury Road which is already a
bottleneck and at the mini roundabout on Prestbury Road with the junction of Victoria Road which is
already badly congested causing delays to traffic and ambulances trying to access the nearby
hospital. This would cause severe problems and extra noise in the area. Local schools, the leisure
centre, GP surgeries and the hospital would have difficulty with the extra strain of more people in
the area and the local wildlife on the fields concerned would be affected. Building is also proposed
on a field which over the last twenty years has gradually become waterlogged and flooded. Twenty
years ago the field was dry. Today there is a large "lake".
Page 169
I have 4 objections to the potential development of Site C My first objection is against the use of
Green Belt land rather than using pre existing urban land. In particular Site C contains precious
hedgerows which promote all manner of native wildlife and a large pond which is frequented by
ducks, geese, herons and other birds, we actually witness the journeys of the mother ducks with
chicks as they make their way to the pond via our garden every year. Within Macclesfield there are
many embarrassing derelict sites and I feel the numbers of potential dwellings in these sites is
grossly underestimated in the Plan. I would have thought that regeneration of existing urban areas
would be a far better option for the overall benefit of Macclesfield than destruction of natural areas
and I suggest these options are re-evaluated. The Town Centre Strategy and the Environmental
Strategy in the draft plan both support my comments in these respects i.e. Strategy: Town Centre:
Promote appropriate alternative uses of vacant town centre units and derelict buildings. Increase
opportunities to live in the town centre. Support the redevelopment of appropriate parts of the
town centre. Strategy: Environment - To make the best value of brownfield and derelict land in the
town. To minimise the development of Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility
and integrity of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt. My 2nd objection is against the
visual impact of replacing green belt fields, hedgerows and pond with houses and the loss of the
view we currently enjoy as we overlook the fields to the side of our house where cows and sheep
graze and the sun sets at night, this is part of the reason we bought the house. Here again my
comments are in line with the Plans environment strategy as mentioned above, additionally the
National policy on Green belt is that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered
in exceptional circumstances and yet no exceptional circumstances are mentioned in the plan. My
3rd objection is against the unsustainability of the existing roads to cater for increased traffic along
both Bollinbrook Road and Prestbury Road. In particular I would highlight the junction of Bollinbrook
Road and Prestbury Road which is already a busy junction and one when where it is challenging to
turn right out of Bollinbrook Road into the busy Prestbury Road (as the majority of traffic does). The
increased volume of traffic at this junction would be from both directions, this would increase the
waiting time and difficulty to turn right out of Bollinbrook Road and increase the risk of traffic
accidents. I would also like to highlight the additional congestion which would result at the Sainsbury
Island which is already a traffic hot spot. My 4th objection is against the introduction of road traffic
and associated noise on Ashfield Drive which is within audible range of our property as this will
result in a loss of tranquillity. Ashfield Drive is currently a cul-de-sac which runs at the side of our
property creates no traffic noise whereas if this became an access road to the proposed site, road
traffic noise would result at all hours of the day. It should also be noted that traffic attempting to
exit Ashfield Drive onto Prestbury Road would face the same challenges as the traffic exiting
Bollinbrook Road onto Prestbury Road mentioned above, in fact the increase of traffic at both these
junctions would serve to mutually exacerbate the problems highlighted. These 3 additional traffic
congestion (Access and Transport objective 4).
I have lived in Macclesfield since 1979, and I have lived near Site C since 2000, and I object most
strongly to this proposal. The site is In the Green Belt, adjacent to an Ancient woodland, and home
to a great variety of birds and animals. And you have Environmental policies to: - Safeguard and
enhance sites of nature conservation and geological importance - To minimise the development of
Greenfield areas - To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside
including the Green Belt. So neither the council by its own policies nor I wish to see the woodland
area, the wildlife and the scenery devastated by housing development on this site. The local schools
Page 170
in this area are fully subscribed and do not have capacity to take more pupils if they wanted to.
Development on this site would bring maybe 600-700 extra cars which would make even worse the
current traffic problems in the North-West area of the town. It would in particular affect Prestbury
Road, Ashfield Drive, Bollinbrook Road, Abbey Road, Stapleton Road, Westminster Road, Coare
Street, the Sainsbury roundabout, Kennedy Avenue, Priory Lane, and towards Prestbury. Abbey Road
would be badly affected as it became a rat run towards town, posing dangers for elderly residents
and children near Bollinbrook School. And Westminster Road has major problems with King's School
6th formers parking Monday-Friday, the residents of Westminster Road itself and the staff of
Sainsbury's from Thursday to Sunday inclusive. Add King's school coaches and there is a major
problem which can be observed from 8am-9am any school morning. But personally, the junction of
Bollinbrook Road and Prestbury Road is my biggest problem. Turning right out of Bollinbrook Road
during the gaps between the busy streams coming both ways is difficult even after 34 years of
driving. And in 2005, I had an accident here which fortunately was minor and did not need to be
reported. I would like this junction to be changed to traffic lights regardless of this consultation.
I live directly behind or facing where you want to build! I live on Wetheral Road where I have done
for 14 plus years. When I moved in I enquired about the land behind. I was told it was green belt and
would not be built upon. As I‘ve mentioned earlier there is an abundance of wild life which have
their habitats in the field and the valley below by the Bollin park. This area is a corridor for fox,
badger and other flower and fauna to dwell. We have Buzzards now permanently in the valley and
other raptors which are not bold so will move away. The road which adjoins my road is Abbey Rd
which is already too busy with the school at the end of the road. Plus congestion from Learner
drivers that are here mon-sun round the clock. Also people are already using the road as a cut
through .The traffic has already increased .If this plan is implemented there I feel it’s an accident in
the making. Then there is the question of the building work causing subsidence as we are on a hill or
incline. Plus if the land was used there is a natural drop to the valley which may cause all kinds of
problems with pipes, sewerage and roads.
I live on Abbey Road near the school and a car actually hit my house when a car was left with no
handbrake on. There have been a lot accidents and near accidents in this area and when the parents
pick the children up caused by too much traffic on the roads. If any more traffic uses Abbey Road
which has parking either side of the road it will be horrendous and only one single car will get
between the parked ones. Bollingbrook is always busy by people trying to avoid the town centre
traffic and with the hospitals and cemetery being on this route there will be long tailbacks. The King
School already holds traffic up because the pupils park on Westminster Road.
I love the fields. I love the ducks
I object strongly to the proposed housing developments on Green Belt land. The proposed
development of land marked C is not only Green Belt land but is designated Special County Value,
bordering the Bollin Valley. Should this land be built on it would join up the village of Prestbury with
the town of Macclesfield, a development that is totally contrary to the purpose of the Green Belt.
the town. This is an environmentally friendly area with hedgerows, a pond and much wildlife that
would be made homeless. The wildlife is enjoyed by people in the area including myself where we
see geese, duck and herons flying over. Owls, pheasants and herons visit our garden along with
many other birds. Twice a year the ducks and ducklings visit our tiny pond. I also object to increasing
traffic on Prestbury and Bollinbrook road. The increase of road traffic along Bollinbrook Road,
Prestbury Road and Ashfield Drive would increase traffic congestion and increase the risk of traffic
accidents. Also the opening of Ashfield Drive which runs to the side of our house would cause traffic
noise whereas now we hear no traffic and have a peaceful environment. One of the reason we
bought this house was because of the view from the side of our house overlooking Upton Woods
fields and the quietness of the area.
I only found out about this on Friday 28 September when a leaflet from a concerned resident was
pushed through my letterbox. Is it a secret? Why can't we have better information? Westminster
Page 171
Road is already a rat run, more housing will make it impossible, the roundabout at Sainsbury's is not
user friendly to residents coming down Westminster Road as it is, it will be horrendous if more
houses are built. I strongly disagree with loss of green belt land.
I recently moved into this area and my solicitor's search did not reveal this proposal - why not ? If
this scheme goes ahead I will sue for compensation as the searches should have revealed the plan.
I strongly disagree with the building of 360 houses on Site C green belt near Westminster Road in
Macclesfield. Myself, partner and son live on Abbey road and we moved here because of the natural
wildlife close by and frequently go on walks along the Bollin. I would feel highly uncomfortable with
more traffic around this area, as my son plays in the front garden with his friends. There is no need
to build new houses when there are plenty rented EMPTY houses in the Macclesfield area. The
council can negotiate with private landlords and make use of these houses PLUS put/pay money
towards the public, then everyone is HAPPY!
and is incompatible with the objective to enhance it.
I think this is most suitable as it is closest to the town centre.
I think this would be a good site (probably the best of the options)
I work at Bollinbrook Primary School and see first hand every day the traffic that is caused around
there from just having the school, if Abbey road was to be the access road to the new houses this
would cause a lot more congestion and make this road that children play on safely (at the moment)
unsafe for children to be on, not only this but in building these houses it would destroy the natural
habitat of a lot of wildlife in the area. As I work in the out of school club at Bollinbrook school we
tend to go on a lot of walks in the holidays around this area so if there were to be houses built here
we wouldn't have the usual places to walk on with the kids where at the minute we are safe. Since I
found out about these plans through my boss at work and not through the school itself being told I
think a lot of residents near by have been ill informed of the plans and many of the parents we've
mentioned it to have had no idea of the plans. I believe that building these houses would be a bad
idea when we have hundreds of boarded up ones that haven't been touched in years, the
community would benefit a lot more from having these houses re done and used in my opinion, and
by building on land already housing houses this doesn't destroy any habitats of animals who might
be living there. A lot of the children at the school do not want the developments to happen either
saying 'the houses will destroy the view' I hope you take the time to investigate further how
residents around the sites feel about the plans because some don't even know it's happening yet.
Thank you
I would like to comment on the plan to build on Green Belt land on Site C, adjacent to Ashfield Drive.
Having looked at the PDF for future town planning, 6.5 states that ' Green Belt Land should only be
changed in exceptional circumstances' and 6.8 states that the' council needs to demonstrate that all
reasonable options have been considered' Neither of these it seems have been taken into
consideration. The building on Greenbelt land goes against the very reason that these were
established and there are it seems plenty of vacant buildings in the town and surrounding area that
would benefit from being remodelled to make for new houses/apartments. Surely this makes more
sense than destroying areas of natural beauty and home to lots of wildlife. We would like to reiterate and are in full agreement with what has been written by one of our neighbours on this
matter..., please see the following. I have read with great concern the proposals outlined in the draft
Macclesfield Town Plan and in particular, the aspects related to increasing new housing in the area
and particularly the potential effect upon Green Belt areas. Housing Needs Assumption - Firstly I
would like to challenge the unexplained statement that Macclesfield really needs a further 3500
homes by 2030. P2 Para 1.7 states the local plan will consider how much housing is needed. P9
jumps to an immediate statement of Strategy: Housing - Deliver in the order of 3,500 homes on new
Page 172
sites by 2030. P14 Para 6.2 gives some statistics for Cheshire East as a whole but refers to: 314
affordable houses per year 2009/10 to 2013/14. We are now in 2012 and no comments beyond
2014 are made. Waiting List of 1,749 for social housing for Macclesfield. This is surely a transient
figure. Nowhere is a figure of 3500 new homes for Macclesfield satisfactorily explained or justified.
Green Belt Sites - Of the 10 areas identified for consideration only options D and H are not involving
Green Belt land. On page 12 the statement regarding Strategy: Environment -the plan states the
following extracts - Safeguard and enhance sites of nature conservation and geological importance.
To make best value of brownfield and derelict land in the town. To minimise the development of
Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside
including the Green Belt. 8 of the proposals are in direct conflict with these objectives. If the two
non-Green Belt sites were chosen for the development this would satisfy 600 houses. In my opinion
Green Belt land was identified by our grandfathers to ensure green areas for future generations to
come. We should take a very hard look at our consciences, before anyone passes permission or
allows others to build on Green Belt land, which is there for future generations to enjoy. Brownfield
Sites P 19 Para 6.17 refers to 150 potential additional dwellings within the town that comprises of
part brownfield land. It is hard to understand how such a low figure can be stated, when looking
around the town there are many derelict buildings such as empty mill buildings with broken
windows which would be ideal for affordable housing. I would suggest that the council looks at this
aspect much more closely before taking such a drastic step as to encroach upon Green Belt. Site C
Specific Concerns -Whilst I have general reservations and concerns about the whole Town Plan, I
cannot understand the inclusion of Site C in the consideration at all. Traffic - The roads around
Prestbury Road are already causing long tailback traffic problems at rush hour times, particularly at
the junction with Bollinbrook Road, on the Sainsbury roundabout and at Kennedy Avenue. There
have already been 11 road traffic accidents on the roads that feed the area - 5 on Bollinbrook Road
alone. Increase in traffic will lead to more incidents. Environment - Additional traffic will increase
noise and pollution. Schools - I believe that schools are already full. Wildlife- Of the 10 options site C
has, uniquely, a natural lake which attracts a wide range of wildlife. Living immediately opposite the
lake I have an unhindered view of the visiting and breeding birds. Mallards, Canada geese, swallows,
swifts, pheasants, red-legged partridges and tawny owls are more or less permanent visitors. I have
even seen an Osprey on one occasion. Herons are common and swans are occasional visitors. The
field around the lake is home to starlings (numbers countrywide are 70% down this year), jackdaws
and rooks. Winter visitors such as redwing and fieldfare are common. The hedgerows provide
breeding grounds for wrens, dunnocks and all types of titmice. There are frogs, toads and newts and
bats in the summer. Loss of Privacy- Those properties on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and
Bollinbarn Drive were purchased by their owners partly due to the open aspect and the belief that as
Green Belt, the land could not be built on. The development would remove this aspect. Effect upon
Neighbourhood and Adjacent Properties- The building of 360 houses on site C, especially if they
were to be low cost housing, would have a negative effect upon the character of the neighbourhood,
which has relatively high quality housing, especially on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and Bollinbarn
Drive. This Town Plan would also negatively influence the valuation of those properties adjacent to
the development. Loss of Prime Agricultural Land- The area is used each year to graze cattle and
sheep and the fencing was enhanced in 2008/9 with a plan to farm Venison, delayed by the
economical crash in 2009.
leaving the greenbelt intact. Sites A, B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all used as recreational lungs of the
town which link to small internal green spaces. Sites E, C, J are fingers of greenbelt that stretch
almost into the heart of the town and provide much appreciated recreational and beautiful places
for the town’s residents. The existing public transport system is far from satisfactory and therefore
Page 173
extending the town’s boundaries will put more pressure on an already inadequate service.
If this site is used then protection and access of the Bolingbrook and woodland areas must be
assured and protected.
Impossible access from Prestbury Road and value as a green corridor to Bollin Valley and ancient
woodland.
been redeveloped.
In previous Local Plans this is Green Belt and Area of Special County Value (ASCV)
In previous Local Plans this is Green Belt and Area of Special County Value (ASCV), as per NE1
Environment is : To make the best value of Brownfield and derelict land in the town. To minimise
the development of Greenfield areas. To value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of
town?
and school closure. Local schools are full (Primary and Secondary).
It is already sufficiently surrounded by building. Surely we should keep some countryside to the
south of Prestbury.
It is an Area of Special County Value (ASCV) as well as Green Belt. If this area, which adjoins the
Bollin Valley Way, were developed it would join up the southern, built , part of Prestbury with the
north west, built, part of Macclesfield in complete contravention of green Belt purposes.
It will turn a quiet, beautiful area into a horrible over crowded dirty estate. The area will go from
minimal crime level to very high levels WE don’t want this. We love walking along the fields to
Prestbury and seeing all the wildlife in all seasons. We (all my neighbours and I) are STRONGLY
AGAINST these plans. Please, please don’t build on this land. Our children are safe to play out on the
small estate because we have a stable and caring community around us. Adding nearly 400 houses
would destroy that because we won’t know all these people or their possibly dangerous history. I
believe that the children will loose out on the wildlife of the Bollin fields. The children regularly learn
about the tadpoles and rare birds that are seen every day. I believe it would destroy any faith we as
a community have in the council. Please don’t do this.
Page 174
It would appear that, in the main, access to this area directly or indirectly would be via Prestbury
Road, Macclesfield. The present level of road traffic is high, and sometimes fast, not only at peak
times but throughout the day. Additional traffic generated by new build can only compound this
situation to an even more dangerous level. The land concerned is home to many species of wildlife
and the existence of these plants and animals would be at risk during and after building work. From
a purely personal point of view, one of the main reasons we bought our retirement property here
was the superb unobstructed views across the piece of land concerned and beyond. Depending on
the exact location of any new properties this open aspect could be lost and therefore the value of
our property would certainly be reduced.
It would fill in development which is there
Keep greenbelt
Little impact on surrounding areas. Some of this area would be suitable although some footpaths
cross this land. Reasonable road access. Danger of joining up Prestbury and Macclesfield.
Macclesfield would be more equally developed if this (bite out) was filled in
Massive loss of greenbelt that can never be replaced - going to cause massive impact to children
going to schools- much busier roads, potential higher risk to children’s safety - two primary schools
minimum to be affected. To live so close to a flooding river -who's is to pay for the house insurance
when it floods year after year as water levels rise would you live there NO!!!!
Maybe. Again, not enough info to show me what info this is or what the impact would be. Any
development would need to include new trees to keep Riverside Park the important green space it is
at the moment.
More traffic more accidents. More frustration
Mottram St Andrew parish council could not support any development of sites A,B or C and would
My parents are moving to a bungalow on Bollinbarn Drive which backs on to open farmland at the
rear. One of the main reasons for purchasing this property was it's proximity to greenbelt, with
views of open fields. This property offers tranquillity on a road where the majority of properties are
bungalows. To build on this greenbelt land would dramatically alter the nature of the adjacent area,
including both ancient woodland and nearby existing dwellings. The farmland is also higher than the
properties on the drive, so any houses built here would overlook all the adjacent bungalows. The
traffic flow is already heavily congested at peak times on main roads serving this area. Any additional
dwellings built in the area would put enormous pressure on existing over-congested roads.
Need to keep sites of importance.
New housing will impact on local services especially the local primary and secondary schools. The
environment will be greatly affected - hedgerows will disappear and the loss of the small pond will
affect the lives of the newts, ducks and Canada geese. The surrounding areas are used by the water
foul for grazing. Access to the site will compromise the surrounding, already busy roads.
No - why destroy the lovely fields next to the Bollin Valley??
No, Green Belt
Location, Timing, Discharge rates and location, Water demand and connexion points. United Utilities
PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity issues if
No green field development should be considered. An unwarranted attack on the green belt of
Macclesfield.
Page 175
Not a good idea to put more housing in middle of already built up area.
Not suitable for development. This land is presently used for agriculture with cows and sheep
grazing. It is an important area for wildlife. Access would presumably be from Prestbury Road which
would mean more traffic on an already dangerous road. It would detract from the Bollin Valley
Country Park.
Not without new separate access that does not increase traffic on Abbey, Westminster and
Bollinbrook roads
Only concern is protecting ancient woodland
the town centre.
Part of this are could be suitable, nearer Westminster Road Area. But toward Prestbury, better to
maintain green barrier
Part only - adjoins north bypass
Poor access and schools full
Possible development, but transport links lacking
Possibly could work - depends on how big.
Preserve green belt and ancient woodland
Prestbury Road already has a constant, severe bottleneck by West Park Museum. Cannot cope with
existing traffic. An ancient woodland cannot be re-located or replaced. The primary school is the
biggest in Macclesfield and the residents of Berwick Close are up in arms about traffic congestion
already. No capacity for more children in the school.
Prestbury Road already too busy, access to town very difficult due to over development around the
roundabout.
Prestbury Road is already a busy road ,and any new access being made off this road would be very
hazardous considering the Bad Bends at this locality. The land is very undulating and it would not be
possible to comply with GC4 whereby a New Development cannot Exceed the Height of any existing
Development i.e. Bungalows on Bollinbarn Drive. (These bungalows being dug into the Hillside and
lower than parts of the field).
Providing sufficient environmental protection to woodland etc. Has benefit of 'filling in' town map development nearer to town centre and thus encouraging people to stay close. Local infrastructure
also in place.
Proximity to the very popular Bollin Valley Riverside Park makes this site more sensitive than sites
Page 176
A+B
Re Development Options Area reference C- Land North of Prestbury Road. I do not agree with this
location of the additional housing required within the Macclesfield area. To locate new housing
within this area appears to be at odds with the Draft Strategy associated with Objective 6:
Environment. I strongly support the need to safeguard and increase the supply, quality and
accessibility of green spaces, to pay particular importance to nature conservation, geological
importance, to improve and enhance the Bollin Valley and to value the attractiveness and integrity
of surrounding countryside including the Green Belt. This area is adjacent to historic Ancient
Woodland and surrounded by the Riverside Park, an area which is regularly used by, and very
popular with, both the local Macclesfield community of all ages through out the year and those from
further afield. To put housing in this area will negatively impact on the local environment, local
wildlife and add to pollution levels. My view is that there is already accessible access to this
countryside recreational facility. Placing housing next to this beautiful quiet area will make this a far
less attractive environmental experience for me and my family.
Redesignate as Environmental and Economic. The land currently supports occasional grazing for
sheep and cattle. It is also associated with the Bollin Valley river corridor together with the
recognised status of Upton Wood.
Residents of Prestbury will not let this happen
Same problems as A and B really given the popularity of the local schools. Last time the council tried
to change the school catchments / feeder system there was uproar - would need to think very
carefully before starting that off again.
Same reason as above, but this development will serve to blur the boundary between Macclesfield
and Prestbury.
Scope for major road congestion unless good well thought-out junctions with main roads, otherwise
seems sensible but the effect on transport links through to the town centre and the east of
Site C comprises sub-sites 3291 (27 homes) and 3515 (337 homes). Site 3291 faces on to Prestbury
Road; a road which is characterised by large detached dwellings with large gardens. The site is also is
adjacent to the Prestbury Road Conservation Area. It is hard to imagine how such a small plot could
accommodate 27 homes and for them to fit in with the character of the area. The proposed density
is far too high. Development of site 3291 would wipe out the pond on this site and take with it the
natural habitat for many water based creatures including Canada geese, ducks , newts and frogs. I
cannot agree to development of this site for this reason alone. Access to site 3515 would
presumably have to be via site 3291, or via Abbey Road. I would object to access via site 3291 for the
same reasons as stated above; destruction of the natural habitat for water based creatures. I also
believe that the restricted view of traffic travelling up and down Prestbury road from an access point
into site 3291 would lead to many more accidents. I would object to access via Abbey Road because
the increased traffic along Abbey Road would put the children attending Bollinbrook school and their
parents at increased risk of injury or death as the result of a traffic accident.
Site C is a precious piece of green belt offering home to rare and varied wildlife, and providing
pleasure and happiness, not only to those of us who are lucky enough to enjoy this green belt from
our homes, but to a large number of commuters in vehicles, bicycles and on foot travelling along
Prestbury Road. Leaving Macclesfield, it's a sign that we're nearly at the countryside, and show me
another location where school children can walk past cows on their walk to Fallibroome? Overall I
have 5 major concerns with this site: 1. Wildlife. In the detail about Site C, your plan acknowledges
the ancient woods of Upton Woods and the ponds, but implies that development on the field will
have little interruption to the wildlife. From our house we can see the spring fed pond by Prestbury
Road, the woods, and the wildlife that lives in both, and uses the fields as a 'green route' between
them. In the pond itself live frogs and newts (we've heard that the protected Great Crested Newt
Page 177
lives here, but I did not look close enough at the last ones Ii saw to find out), ducks raise their young,
and squadrons of Canada geese use the pond for courting, and as a safe haven in bad weather and in
winter. We also get visits from herons and swans. Around and above the fields, protected bats can
be seen every summer evening at dusk, darting out across the fields as they take their fill. Tawny
owls hoot to one another across the fields, using the green belt fields in their hunting grounds. Foxes
can be seen travelling along the edge of the field, moving between the woods and the pond. We
regularly see pheasants and red legged partridges in the field. And the ducks and geese who live or
rest at the pond also use the fields for grazing, and in the case of the ducks, mothers walk their
young all the way to the River Bollin and back across the fields, and the geese use the field for their
long runway when taking off and landing in wonderful formation. It is a spectacular site, and a joy to
all of us who live nearby. Building on, or near the fields would have a permanent and devastating
affect on all the wildlife that lives in and around the ponds and fields that Site C would destroy. 2.
Visual impact and negative effect on the character of the neighbourhood. The green belt fields of
Site C are surrounded by the ancient woods on one side, the Bollin on the other, and the houses on
Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive, Bollinbarn and Bollinbrook estates. The character of our
neighbourhood is defined by the quiet streets and the rolling green belt fields that we back on to.
Some of us have lived here for 50 years or more, some of us have moved more recently, but in every
case it is entirely because of the charm and character the green belt provides. Many of our
neighbours were unaware of this potential development, and there is a genuine feeling of mourning
at the thought of losing the character of our neighbourhood to concrete and urban sprawl. By my
calculations, over 90 homes will directly lose their views of fields if this proposal goes ahead. Now
add to that all of the houses on Bollinbarn and Bollinbrook estates whose quiet roads will be turned
into main carriageways for 360 new houses worth of commuters and school runs. 3. Loss of PrivacyThe houses on Bollinbarn estates are in land lower than the rest of the field. Building on the field will
take away all of their privacy, with houses looking directly down and into their homes. A number of
houses on Ashfield Drive and Prestbury Road will also have their privacy removed where instead of
looking upon open fields we will be being looked into from housing estates. 4. Traffic - Prestbury,
Bollinbrook and Westminster Roads are already extremely fast and busy roads into and out of
Macclesfield. Adding 360 houses to these already narrow and busy roads will only make matters
worse. The character and charm of our neighbourhood is the quietness of the backstreets together
with the green and pleasant land is sits next to. Building on these fields will not only take away the
greenery that brings so much pleasure to so many people, but turn quiet cul-de-sacs and peaceful
lanes into busy thoroughfares with 360 households racing through on the way to work, dropping off
the kids, or nipping to the shops. Imagine choosing to live in a peaceful road, and then discovering
that 1000+ car journeys could be whizzing past your front gate - truly devastating for literally 100s of
houses. 5. Road Safety With increase in traffic comes inevitably an increase in road incidents and a
higher number of casualties. The cars that cruise down Prestbury, Bollinbrook and Westminster
Roads already do so far too fast - as a cyclist using these roads to commute on a daily basis, I have
had several cars nearly knock me off the road because they're trying to overtake me too fast, when
it's too busy. Putting personal stories aside for a moment and instead looking at statistical evidence,
we can see that the roads around Site C have had 11 accidents in half as many years. At the junction
of Bollinbrook and Prestbury Roads alone there have been 5 incidents since 2005. (Source
Crashmap.co.uk ). Adding 360 houses at site C will put 1000+ car journeys daily into the these roads,
making the junction at Bollinbrook and Prestbury Road far, far more dangerous. Maybe they would
bring the traffic out at Ashfield Drive instead? That's no good, as it would create a second dangerous
junction just around the corner from Bollinbrook. Other traffic will be zooming down Abbey Road,
past the Primary School... For these 5 key reasons, for the people who have chosen to live next to
these fields, and so that our next generation can enjoy them, I implore you to drop Site C. I truly
believe that building 360 new houses here will create unhappiness in more than 360 existing ones.
Site C will have a detrimental effect on the neighbourhood, destroying ancient woodland, destroy
precious Green Belt in the Bollin Valley and put pressure on already overstretched schools. Access to
Page 178
this site will be on the very road where I live, where my child and many other children play, causing
congestion and other traffic hazards. Out of work hours Abbey Road is down to single lane traffic
due to cars parked on either side of the road.
Smaller scale development in a defined area - broadly in favour.
Some compact don't sprawl
Some of this area may be suitable but not if it impacts on the footpaths which cross the land.
Strongly "conservation" Green Belt. Unnecessary, wildlife would be severely affected. Also pond
here.
Strongly Conservation & green belt. Wildlife would be severely affected. Pond here too
Strongly disagree on the grounds of extra traffic in an already busy and congested area.
STRONGLY DISAGREE Site C Specific Concerns Whilst I have general extreme reservations and
concerns about the whole Town Plan, I cannot understand the inclusion of Site C in the
consideration at all. 1-TRAFFIC The roads around Prestbury road are already causing long tailback
traffic problems at rush hour times, particularly at the junction with Bollinbrook Road, on the
Sainsbury roundabout and at Kennedy Avenue. There have already been 11 road traffic accidents on
the roads that feed the area 5 on Bollinbrook Road alone. Increase in traffic will lead to more
incidents 2- ENVIRONMENT Additional traffic will bring noise and more pollution. 3 SCHOOLS- I
believe that schools are already full. 4 WILDLIFE AND FLORA- Of the 10 options site C has uniquely a
natural lake which attracts a wide range of wildlife. Living immediately opposite the lake I have an
unhindered view of the visiting and breeding birds. Mallards, Canada geese, swallows, swifts are
more or less permanent visitors. I have even seen an Osprey on one occasion. Herons are common
and swans are occasional visitors. The fields around are home to starlings, Jackdaws and rooks.
Winter visitors such as redwing are common. The hedgerows are home to wrens, dunnocks and all
types of titmice. There are frogs, toads and newts and bats in the summer. Badgers have been seen
in Upton Wood, as well as blankets of bluebells. Fungi is also to be found. 4 LOSS OF PRIVACY Those
properties on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and Bollinbarn Drive were purchased by their owners
partly due to the open aspect and the belief that as Green Belt, the land could not be built on. The
development would remove this aspect. 5 EFFECT UPON NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ADJACENT
PROPERTIES The building of 360 houses on site C, especially if they were to be low cost housing,
would have a negative effect upon the character of the neighbourhood, which has relatively high
quality housing, especially on Prestbury Road, Ashfield Drive and Bollinbarn Drive. This Town Plan
would also negatively influence the valuation of those properties adjacent to the development. 6
LOSS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND The area is used each year to graze cattle and sheep and the
fencing was enhanced in 2008/9 with a plan to farm Venison, delayed by the economical crash in
2009
Strongly disagree. We have Riverside Park and Bollin and ancient woodland that should not be
interfered with. It would destroy thousands of wildlife habitats
Strongly disagree with using this area. The Riverside Park is a beautiful asset enjoyed by many.
Strongly disagree, because of fundamental change to the distinctive semi rural nature of a
predominately residential area of long standing. Difficult to see, in comparison to more 'open' sites
how an additional c.1000 people and their cars and other infrastructure needs can be
accommodated without vastly changing and up heaving the whole locale, particularly the already
dangerous roads. Upton Wood would surely be damaged simply by the loss of surrounding open
Page 179
countryside. Appears to be in direct contradiction the Environmental Aims described in the
document. The character of the area would be lost, the landscape would be changed forever,
productive farmland lost and distinctive 'quiet' corner of Macclesfield would be urbanised with an
incremental increase in pressure on local infrastructure, services and amenities.
Strongly disagree, this site will have a real negative affect on the character of the neighbourhood. It
will cause a huge increase in the volume of traffic, causing an increase in traffic incidents. The local
schools are already full .The wildlife is abundant, so why would we ruin a truly beautiful area, which
can never be replaced by building houses, when there are properties vacant, and waste land i.e.
Congleton road that can fit more property's on rather than using up our green belt areas.
Strongly disagree. The road infrastructure can not take any more traffic. The schools in the area are
full. Valuable wildlife habitat will be lost and existing home valuations and amenity impaired.
Strongly disagree, Conservation & Green Belt. Wildlife would be severely affected. Pond here.
The access to and from this area is already difficult and dangerous and any increase in transport
would surely lead to more accidents. The sight lines onto an already busy road are very poor due to
bends in the road. At present, there is a pond on the site which provides a natural home for wildlife
i.e. ducks, geese, pond life. The land also provides grazing for cows or sheep. The likely increase in
children would have an impact on local schools, the nearest high school already been oversubscribed.
The development of these sites would result in the loss of land that lies within the open countryside
and the loss of land with the specific landscape character; higher farms and woods as identified
within the draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Site C lies adjacent to an
Area of Ancient Woodland that is likely to support a range of established habitats.
The existing Green Belt between Macclesfield and Prestbury should be preserved.
can be seen.
The location of Site C is totally inappropriate for the following reasons:- It will ruin the Bollin Valley the Bollin Valley will no longer act as a beautiful peace of countryside separating Prestbury from
Macclesfield, it will just become some parkland in-between housing estates The gap between
suburb of Macclesfield. Upton Woods would be ruined.
The potential damage to the ancient woodland outweighs the possible benefit of 360 houses
The potential destruction of this green belt land has a massive impact on nature and the character
Page 180
and charm of why people want to live and work in Macclesfield. If we wanted to live without areas
of stunning natural beauty we would all live in tower blocks in the cities nearby. I moved here
because Macc is a town where children get a good education, can play safe in the street on their
bikes and I can walk in amongst tree's, streams and nature yet still walk into the centre if I need to
purchase food clothing or larger items. Redevelopment of this land would make what is now a family
friendly quiet area, (with only b road access) feel like living in Manchester again. It is not uncommon
to see frogs, crane's, rabbits and other wildlife on a daily walk around the estate and the only way
they will stay is if we don’t ruin their natural habitat further.
The roads in this area are not designed for even more traffic which development would bring. This
area is green belt and it cannot be necessary to develop it. The local schools are already full so it
does not make economic sense to add to this when schools further afield, I.e. Tytherington, have
room for students.
The site is situated, adjacent to a conservation area where the houses are all detached with large
gardens. The proposed number of houses is not in keeping with the surrounding area and with the
size of site should only warrant 6 houses. However, the site has a pond that promotes wild life which
is unique to this area. Canada geese, newts, ducks visit daily and the occasional swan has been
known to use the lake. To gain access to the site would be from either Prestbury Road or from Abbey
Road, and from a daily experience of having to gain entry onto Prestbury Road from Ashfield Drive
can be hazardous. The additional cars travelling through the Abbey Road estate, especially as there
is a local primary school, would be madness in itself and an accident waiting to happen. Schooling as all the local primary schools are full and Fallibroome have a wait list, where would the additional
children be educated?
The thought of adding housing, and therefore, traffic to this already busy and dangerous road is
ludicrous. The pollution caused from the traffic and other emissions will adversely affect the health
of young children that walk to and from school and the town centre. To destroy one of the only
natural green sites that is a pleasure to all who pass it is an act of environmental terrorism and
anyone who agrees with proceeding with this site should be ashamed.
The valley is already a green break between the two settlements; it would be better not to encroach
on this.
There are already schools in the area which are oversubscribed, poor roads and major congestion.
More houses will only cause more problems. These are the only green areas nearby by which should
stay.
There are strong existing boundaries to the area comprising River Bollin, Upton Wood and Prestbury
Road. Mature tree line along much of boundary. Site will allow for the provision of high quality green
spaces and children's play spaces as well as access to the river for recreational purposes or ecological
enhancement. Highways report concludes the sites is in a sustainable location and no adverse
impact on the local network. Easy walking distance to town centre and will provide opportunities to
create significant open spaces to be enjoyed by residents and general public. A riverside park could
be created. Also in close proximity to existing parks and leisure facilities. Ecological survey did not
identify any protected species present at the time but did confirm Riverside Park Local Nature
Reserve adjacent should be afforded protection. Development would present opportunity to create
additional ecological resources. Site could be removed from Green Belt without affecting the
integrity of the remaining Green Belt. There are insufficient brown field sites to meet the on-going
needs of Macclesfield therefore Green belt land will be required.
There is already intensive development in this area, therefore more housing would not change the
nature of the area. There is no land gap now between this site and the next settlement, Prestbury,
and therefore development is appropriate as infill.
There is some potential for development here, but it is important not to fill in the whole of this area
with houses as a lot of enjoyment is gained from the river walk in this area. It would be a shame to
ruin this. Really natural green areas (as opposed to recreation grounds) are in short supply in the
South West part of town, and it would be a shame to make this mistake here.
Page 181
This area has a unique pond that accommodates geese, ducks, herons and newts. It is also a
stopping off place for migrating birds and for the wildlife living in the adjacent ancient "Upton
Woodlands" The roads that would serve this site are already much used . Prestbury Rd is totally
inadequate for today’s’ traffic. Narrow or in places no footpaths. It is a dangerous road not only for
traffic but for pedestrians and disabled people too. In the recent past there have been many
accidents. Bollingbrook Rd, the other possible entry point is also very busy. It is the "rat run" from
Prestbury Rd into Macclesfield centre. Does new housing need to be built right next to existing
housing? Could there be "green spaces" left in between? This is the 21st century. People don't walk
to work!. This plan is the same urban sprawl that is reminiscent of the 19th and 20th centuries.
This area has had housing development in the last 25 years and should be suitable for further
development.
This area of country side should be maintained. It is particularly beautiful and should be valued for
country side.
This area should be developed for its natural environment rather than housing.
This area, including Upton Woods, would provide recreational countryside access to sites A & B, and
Upton Priory residents. This area of countryside is also easily accessed by foot from Macclesfield
town centre and it would be desirable to retain this.
This brings green space into the town and should not be lost.
This development will completely destroy local wildlife and increase traffic flow in the immediate
area. There are several schools nearby and there are many accidents on Prestbury Rd and Bollinbarn
annually already without further increasing the risk. Not only are children endangered, but this area
has a high population of older people who are not as quick as they used to be!
This is a close in site. Sustainability and protecting the green belt is a stated aim therefore existing
town sites and brownfield sites must be developed first. Any sites which have had a longstanding
development proposal should be next such as at Tytherington and South Macclesfield. The
remaining sites are all green belt and deserve a higher protection but obviously some of these sites
must be given to development-one of the main criteria for choosing the sites should be their
sustainability which is determined primarily by their existing and proposed transport links to the
town centre and its transport hubs. This is mainly a function of the distance of the site from a central
town position which I would take as the bus station (which is within the Town centre and a few
hundred yards from the Railway Station.)
This is a green 'corridor', a wildlife haven, it would be a disgrace to build here. There are no strong
reasons to build on green belt land, and the only people who will benefit from this are property
developers and their friends.
This is a key part of an important buffer between Macclesfield and Prestbury; if houses are built here
they will become a continuous urban area. This land is also an important haven for wildlife along
with the Bollin Riverside Park and Upton Woods which border it.
This is a valued area of countryside and development here would move towards coalescence of
Macclesfield with Prestbury as well as impacting upon the Riverside Park. It would have an adverse
impact on the setting of the existing residential areas in the vicinity of this site.
This is both Green Belt AND an Area of Special County Value in previous local plans
This is green belt land and should stay this way. Abbey road has a primary school and does not want
it to become a bus route and cut through there is too much traffic as it is. The schools close by are
already over subscribed -where will the children go!!
This is Green Belt land in the truest sense. It is a natural buffer separating Macclesfield from
Prestbury. It supports a great variety of wildlife together with the ancient woodland of Upton Wood
Page 182
which is adjacent (The Riverside Park is also adjacent) It is used for cattle grazing and the production
of hay for cattle food. If building took place on it the surrounding roads i.e. Bollingbrook Rd would
become even more congested than they are already. Prestbury Rd being particularly dangerous as it
is quite narrow between the junctions with Victoria Rd and Kennedy Ave. The hospital is nearby and
this would put further pressure on its approaches, particularly as emergency ambulances use the
Prestbury Rd frequently and could be severely delayed by congestion
This is greenbelt land and will be adjacent to an area of special interest and therefore should not be
built on
This is prime green belt land.
This land is particularly valuable to wildlife, a mixed habitat of pasture woods and a pond, plus a
wildlife corridor to the River Bollin
This land provides a boundary between the general urban sprawl of Macclesfield and the village of
Prestbury. It is the home to many forms of wildlife including Canada Geese, ducks, bats, newts,
foxes, pheasants, owls and herons. Further, access to the site from Prestbury Road would
unacceptably increase the risk of accidents on an already dangerous road without sightlines to
observe traffic on the road. Prestbury Road has a significant record of traffic accidents already.
This land provides green field and open space amenity and should remain undeveloped
This on green belt land, and threatens one of Macclesfield's most heavily used parks - the Bollin
Way. It is also adjacent to a local nature reserve and ancient woodland.
This option along with A and B should be a last resort for housing supply. This option extends the
This proposal fails to meet the Council's own Objectives and Strategy on a number of counts: (1)
There is an objective to increase the number of people living in the town centre. There are a number
of locations around the town centre which would offer significant opportunities for development.
Whilst there is a vague recognition of the number of houses that could be met in this area, this
needs to be given much more prominence as a means of protecting the Green Belt areas. The
redevelopment of the Victoria Park flats offers a good template for what could be achieved in similar
areas close to the town centre. No Green Belt site should even be considered until all brownfield and
town centre options have been fully exploited. This does not appear to have been given adequate or
active consideration (2) There is a stated "Access and Transport" Objective to ease traffic congestion.
The Westminster Road junction by Sainsbury's, the Bollinbrook Road junction with Prestbury Road,
and the roundabout at the top end of Prestbury Road are already major traffic bottlenecks with long
queues during busy periods. Adding further traffic to these junctions would be a direct contradiction
of the objective to ease traffic congestion. (3) There is a stated Environmental Objective "to preserve
and enhance areas of special and natural value in and around the town". The Prestbury Road
community currently enjoy a special open aspect with low density housing and open views of fields
and countryside which would be obliterated by the development of Site C. This is an area of special
natural value which should not be compromised. You only have to observe the number of joggers
and runners along Prestbury Road to recognise that this open aspect is a valuable community
facility. (4) There is also a stated Environmental Objective "to minimise the development of
Greenfield areas". If it is possible to consider that some Greenfield areas have more value than
others, I would argue that Site C is a particularly attractive Greenfield area which offers excellent
views across to the hills, supported by attractive hedging and small wooded areas. It would be
immensely disappointing to lose this. (5) The plan also seeks to "value the attractiveness,
accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including Green Belt". We do not want
Page 183
Macclesfield to end up as some large housing estate. The presence of these areas of active green,
Site C in particular, prevents this from happening; these areas have enormous value as a result. (6)
The plan confirms that "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered under exceptional
circumstances". I wish to highlight and to stress the word "exceptional". I see nothing in the present
situation that merits the permanent loss of an exceptional current amenity. The Council have not
done enough to demonstrate that the current situation is truly exceptional - it sounds like more of
the same. I have a particular concern about Site C since it will have a direct impact on my own
property and my living experience. My house backs on to the area in question, which is currently
open fields. Apart from the distressing loss of a wonderful view, I am seriously concerned about the
topography of the area - the land rises quite steeply from the gardens to the west of Bollinbarn
Drive. The existing houses would not only lose their current views, but would be significantly
overlooked by any houses built on the steep rise. This is not a sustainable or viable option.
This site has some unique features like a lake, rich wild life and forest, the destruction of which
would greatly reduce the attractiveness of Macclesfield. Prestbury Road is already a very busy road,
further adding traffic will just gridlock the area in busy times, it is bad enough at present, before
compounding to the problem with further housing.
This site has the merit of proximity to the town centre, and consequent reduced carbon footprint.
This won't happen because of Prestbury and the Golf course. Why does Prestbury always have
special treatment such as street lighting, smart litter bins etc.
This would bring Macclesfield too close to Prestbury also Green Belt with ancient woodlands and
wildlife
This would have significant impact on the natural environment of the Bollin Valley Way, which is
enjoyed by many walkers.
To even consider this site is ridiculous. When the roads around are already too congested and will
ruin the area for existing residents not to mention the wild life. The character of the neighbour will
be changed forever.
Too may mansions have been built in Prestbury. Stop building these oversized houses. Keep a good
boundary away from close villages like Prestbury.
Under no circumstances should Site C be built upon. I live near this site, and there are enough cars
speeding along Prestbury Road & Bollinbrook Road (which my cat runs the gauntlet of) as it is. And
as for Westminster Road past Kings' school (with their parking on the road) and the Sainsbury’s
Roundabout, the traffic jams are dreadful already. And if there's an exit for the new houses onto
Abbey Road, the extra cars will use it as a rat run past Bollinbrook School. I used to live in Willow
Court at the end of Abbey Road and there are several blocks of flats with old people in who would
be at danger from lorries during building work and cars once the houses were built.
Under no circumstances should this site be developed. It is a beautiful woodland inhabited by
wildlife. This area should be left for future generations to enjoy. The area does not lend itself to a
further 360 dwellings purely based on inaccessibility to the site by traffic. Taking roads out/in on to
Abbey road & Ashfield Drive would cause total chaos - Westminster Road, Prestbury Road and
Bollinbrook Road cannot cope now with the high levels of traffic - the area is a death trap for
pedestrians and motorists alike at high peak times. THIS AREA MUST NOT BE DEVELOPED UNDER
ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It cannot cope with a further 400 to 500 cars. This woodland must be left
untouched - the building of 360 houses in an area tightly fitted into a busy district like this is
ludicrous.
Unspoilt country land.
Unthinkable to take the last pocket of greenery , Prestbury Rd, Bollingbrook Rd cannot cope with
more traffic
Page 184
Upton Woods and adjacent land are teeming with wildlife which is enjoyed by visitors to Riverside
Park in the Bollin Valley. Bats, Buzzards and Tawny Owls as well as many other birds are seen there
daily. Both the environmental impact as well as the significantly adverse impact on the appearance
of this greenbelt land make building in this area unacceptable.
Very busy road already. Often traffic bottle neck going into Macclesfield along this road
Vital natural habitat for flora and fauna + would encroach on the Green Belt between Macclesfield
and Prestbury.
Volume of extra traffic on road that is already busy- having young children this affects them not
being safe for them to be out; destroying the wildlife and outdoors and affecting local schools
already oversubscribed
We need green spaces why build here. Terrible road access.
We need our Green Belts/ Woodland - plants, birds, animals must be protected
Westminster Rd, Bollinbrook Rd, Too much traffic now
Westminster Rd. Bollingbrook Rd. too much traffic bad enough now.
What would impact on wildlife be of such a development? I can't see that this is justified given the
number of derelict brownfield sites in the town.
Whilst its proximity to Riverside Park makes some development on this site attractive as there will
be local walking opportunities, it will start to impinge upon the green space of land north of
Prestbury Road, thus stopping the countryside extending into the town.
Will turn Abbey Rd into a rat run also not enough resources i.e. schools also egress access.
Would hate to see anything damage the Bollin Valley area
Would impinge on Riverside Park
Would impinge on the Bollin valley and remove the gap between Macc and Prestbury
Would result in sprawl along edge of Bollin Valley. Issue of urban coalescence with Prestbury
contrary to Green Belt objectives
land in the first instance. You don’t need to consider more business uses we have loads of business
Page 185
Q3. Site D: Land at Tytherington Business Park (Housing or Employment)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site D in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site D
A good area for mixed development
Tytherington Business Park actually now has outline planning permission for up to 111 residential
dwellings, including 30% of the properties as affordable.
Already an Employment Area in this Strategy Document, and in previous Local Plans
Already being used for dwelling and office based businesses
An excellent site to develop as there is already a mix of development there and it fits with current
infrastructure
Any housing or employment options on this area is a good thing, as it has been unsightly for years!
Appears a sensible location to extend a sucessful area of development.
Area already in use for housing/employment - need to continue development. Not in Green Belt so
use it
Area already partly developed and could be extended with less impact
Area D Tytherington Business Park conversion to residential allocation would rule out employment
development on the north side of the town on land already serviced and capable of being served by
public transport when access roads linked through. Residential development would be separated by
area developed for employment purposes with some adverse amenity and traffic impacts. Current
proposals for housing development could pre-empt options for this site (one scheme for housing
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site D
Page 186
already permitted, another seems imminent). Once released for alternative uses another allocation
would have to be found which seems wasteful.
As it is adjacent to existing Business Park, this area could be developed with perhaps a minimum
need for new roads. Also, it is not Green Belt land.
As long as not too many houses- could possibly work.
As stated traffic, will not cope with this development which seems to be a FAIT accompli as far as
ASL is concerned. Manchester Rd and Bollington aren’t adequate for increased traffic nor will
schools, healthcare etc suffice. This needs the council to offer incentives/discounts etc to companies
in a more inventive way than hereto for as IT companies and similar businesses will be encouraged
by better road and rail connections
As there is a business park here already, this should be developed further for employment.
As this area has proven to be unattractive to commercial developers the council should seek to make
it available to residential developers.
Attract more business to this area, then build dwellings for the workers
Better infrastructure already in place, on 'right side of town'
Better than building on Greenbelt - use other options first.
Broadly agree with this one Brownfield sites would be better
Brownfield, and OK. Good access to free-flowing roads.
Business only
Can't see problems here
Carefully done could be a mix of business and residential. Potential good transport links.
Certainly for employment.
Clearly not all land is required by employment so would be ideal to build additional residential
Community use as well. For example Activity or entertainment centre for young people (11 to 19) of
Bollington & Tytherington. Something for them to do.
Concentrate on filling the empty offices and business premises in Macclesfield before other
permission is given.
Continue to infill here as already earmarked for development
Could be more of a business park, if required. Too overbuilt with houses.
Could, and should, be used for either or both.
Currently a very 'mixed' economy with no change to the character of the area.
Currently designated for employment use but ideal for re-allocating to mixed and/or housing use in
line with a recommendation by the RSS panel. SHOULD BE APPROVED (N.B. Since the Draft Strategy
was published, CEC has granted permission for part of this land to be developed for housing)
Develop this area to promote new businesses to offer employment
Development in Area D would affect Footpaths Macclesfield 36 and Bollington 38, 44, 45 and 48,
assuming the area is entirely west of the Silk Road..
altered in exceptional circumstances - vital for present and future generations. 2) Brown field sites
should be used for housing . 3) Preserve green open spaces. Green lungs are vital between areas of
Effectively in-fill development
Employment
Employment rather than housing.
Employment land should be focussed closer to the town centre not bleed ever further away from it.
This is if in fact more Employment land is necessary.
Page 187
Especially for employment as good links is a silk road
Excellent choice already good links and the housing employment mix could be a great benefit
Existing business park areas are the obvious place for concentration of the small amount of
development needed
First priority for new housing and employment uses should be the existing built up area.
Tytherington Business Park (site D) and South Macclesfield Development Area (site H) have
remained undeveloped for over 20 years .
For additional housing
For housing
For housing. The land is not needed for employment.
For industrial and commercial use only.
For more housing as the land is not needed for employment
For more housing as the land is not needed for employment
For more housing as this land isn't needed for employment
Given the current development and the good road links, this ought to be developed.
Good for employment (as already marked) or mixed housing / employment (as long as offices).
Good road access is already available.
Good road and public transport links. Probably site with the best potential
Good site for extra building.
Has lain fallow for many years. Would have thought is one of the best sites for housing
Have you seen how many office blocks are empty. Again no need for housing and what about the
school
Housing development fits better here as already full of housing estates.
Housing or Employment. Please try to create areas defined as being either Housing or Employment.
Tytherington Business Park is located close to Site D. Please decide whether this is to be designated
for Housing or Employment.
I am strongly opposed to development on Greenfield land but as the character of this area has
already been largely ruined by the development of the Silk Road and Tytherington Business park I
would have to say that it is the area where further development would cause me the least amount
of concern.
I do not believe there is a need for more houses to built in this area
I favour the development of Tytherington Business Park (Site D) for up to 300 houses
I have no objection to the housing development proposed at Tytherington Business Park as this land
is not in the Green Belt and reflects the RSS recommendation that appropriate land be released from
employment allocation to mixed use and /or housing.
I support this as it is not Green Belt.
I support this development where housing is close to an employment area.
I think this area should focus on business development.
I understand that this site was planned for employment development but it seems that only 50% has
been developed in 30 years, and those buildings which have been built are 50% empty (according to
Orbit Developments). The site is very accessible and well located, so there are no apparent reasons
why the site has remained mainly undeveloped, other than a lack of demand. Cheshire East Council
has recognised this by recently permitting 100 houses on part of it. I understand that up to 300
houses could be built on the site. Approving development for housing on Tytherington Business Park
would significantly help avoid building on Macclesfield precious Green Belt. In addition, housing built
on Tytherington Business Park would be more compatible with the surrounding housing areas.
I work on Tytherington Business park and I am very disappointed with the number of empty units
there are here already, why would there be a need for more? The road infrastructure around this
Page 188
area would not sustain a housing development.
I would think that there is sufficient capacity for office space and therefore housing would be more
likely. The sooner that Springfield Way is linked to Manchester Road the better!
Ideal area for development as it out of the town centre, close to the Silk Road and Manchester road
(would be ideal for people wanting access to Manchester). It would be close to shops at
Tytherington.
If additional employment is to be provided sufficient parking is required as, for example, the roads
around Heald Green become choked during office hours. For mixed development good separation
between housing and employment (Including adequate parking) must be provided, as must suitable
leisure facilities.
If houses are to be built in Macc. This is the best area as offices have already been built and stand
empty. So the rest of the site may as well be housing
Infrastructure is in place
Is it necessary to take Green Belt land before developing redundant properties in and around the
town?
It is a pity that land to standing idle facing the A538. Why cannot this be developed for housing if
there is no indentified commercial demand for it?
It is exactly the areas that need to be developed
Its sat idle for ages. Houses would be an improvement.
Land of little recreational or aesthetic value in an area that the local community have largely
accepted will be developed
Longstanding difficulties in getting business use makes extension to mixed or residential use an
obvious option
Loss of green space and loss of wild life.
Mixed area so preferable
Mixed use area preferable
Mixed use so preferable
Mixed use, so preferable
Money should be spent on improving the town centre shopping experience.
More housing could be allocated to this site as it is not required for employment purposes.
More housing logical as the land is not needed for employment
Natural England notes that this site has previously been allocated for employment use.
Near the bypass and brown field.
Near to the Silk road, seems a good idea
Needs something doing urgently on the Manchester Road part. Care needs to be taken on the
business/housing positions. But concern at extra traffic with increase of numbers at Marlborough
school
Location, Timing, Discharge rates and location, Water demand and connexion points United Utilities
PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity issues as
No one wants there neighbourhood to become part of an enlarged town but if the centre is brought
Page 189
Not fully developed; accessible; why is it still not fully developed?
Not Green Belt, but for 150 houses is far from a total solution
Not greenbelt land and seems appropriate for development.
Ok
One of the two potential sites that are not in the Green Belt.
Only suitable for industrial
Only when this site and all other business sites are fully utilised, should this be considered. There is
land at the corner of Tytherington Lane that was earmarked years ago and the farmhouse that stood
there was demolished. It has stood vacant for years.
Probably best suited for employment here.
Probably housing if properly designed and integrated
Probably the only place to build in or around Macclesfield.
Probably the only site suitable, near employment. An unwarranted attack on the green belt of
Macclesfield.
Seems a Done Deal! What would be the point of objecting.
Seems a sensible area for development.
Seems a shame to re allocate land that is earmarked for bring new businesses in. Has there been
much uptake of this land by businesses so far ? However, local infrastructure is much more likely to
be able to cope increased demand in this area.
Should be developed for business rather than housing
Should be entirely used for housing as next to Silk Road already - don't need to amend road
infrastructure too much. Also we don't need any more empty office blocks on that site.
Should be utilised for residential as business park has been unsuccessful
Site is allocated for employment but is mostly empty .Houses here would take pressure off building
on green belt
Site is less than 30% developed and buildings are 50% empty. Accessibility not a problem and
housing would blend with the existing area.
Smaller housing development. Good access routes into Macclesfield and towards Manchester.
Some extension to existing
Still underdeveloped although accessible
Support it being used for housing rather than employment. This would be in keeping with the RSS
recommendation that appropriate land be released from employment allocation to mixed use
and/or housing
The area has already been affected by previous attempts at development. The roads are in place to
accommodate additional housing / employment. Sits between the towns of Macclesfield and
Bollington which would serve both communities. Light and noise problem already an issue so cannot
be undone.
The infrastructure of a community already exists (with a leisure centre and easy access to
Manchester and the airport). The only area I can see those new houses being built on around
Page 190
Macclesfield. There should be more than 150!
The only one I will concur with is Tytherington Park although from my reading this would provide
only a smaller number of new houses.
The only potential site that would not mean redevelopment of green belt land.
The opportunity to build a new school in this area was lost in the 1980's and this development would
not provide enough children to warrant a new school
The outcome of any proposals for this site will, to an extent, rely on the Employment Land Review
and the fact that there is an existing planning permission for some residential development at this
site.
The site is currently half empty anyway!!!!!!
The site looks derelict and would be better put to some use than left as it is.
The site should be identified solely for future residential development. There is an oversupply of
employment land in the former Borough of Macclesfield (approximately 30 years), particularly in the
Tytherington area, and the amount of vacant floor space means it is extremely unlikely that
employment use will come forward on the site now or in the future. This is supported by the
Macclesfield Economic Plan and Masterplan (prepared by CBRE on behalf of Cheshire East dated
November 2011) which states, 'there is substantial pressure on current employment land owners
with evidence emerging to suggest that there is considerable over supply of employment land within
the borough. This largely exists at Tytherington and in the South Macclesfield area.' At a time when
the Council is faced with difficult decisions regarding the possible need to release Green Belt land for
development, very sustainable sites such as this which are more sustainable than the Green Belt
sites identified, located within the settlement boundary where there is no need for employment use
and clearly no demand given the availability of the land for many years, should clearly be identified
for housing; otherwise the strategy would be in direct conflict with the NPPF which is clear that sites,
for which there is no realistic prospect of employment delivery, should be released from their
allocations for alternative uses. Furthermore the site is located immediately adjacent to an
established residential area, and the change in site levels clearly distinguish it from the existing
employment land.
The Society does not object to the potential development at Tytherington Business Park as it is a
developed area and would not encroach on the Green Belt.
The take-up of business properties up to now is rather poor so why not build more houses
There has been a long period of planning blight. would prefer housing
There is general agreement that if Tytherington Business Pk is not working, then allow the
demolition of units there and allow even more housing on this northern quarter district (150 houses
proposed is insufficient given the lack of uptake of employment land on the Park).
There is plenty of existing allocated land available in this area so there is no need to sacrifice more
important areas of the green belt elsewhere . There is good existing access and it would be
compatible with existing development whether housing or employment.
There is potential there for development.
There should be a general presumption against the use of land in the Green Belt
This appears to be brown land so no objections to the proposed number of houses.
This appears to have been available for development for some years, but nothing has been done
with it. Should be proceeded with.
This area again is near to schools and employment also for commuting to Stockport and Manchester.
This area has had housing and business development in the last 25 years and should be suitable for
further development. It is not in the Green Belt
This area is already semi-developed, so it would seem appropriate to have more development there
This area is not greenbelt and is already developing and growing for business and housing. It is also
on the north side of Macclesfield for commute to Stockport/Manchester without having to cross
town.
Page 191
This area would lend itself better to residential than business use.
This could be considered due to existing employment
This does seem worth consideration. A mix of housing and modern office developments could
sensibly be added here. But, is there really demand currently?
This is a commercial employment site and should remain as such.
This is a suitable location
This is an underused white elephant at present
This is green belt land isn't it?
This is housing well away from the town and is surrounded by executive housing. This area should be
developed for employment, not housing.
This is not within the Green Belt and is already allocated for business and commercial uses.
This land has development potential providing that the infrastructure planning is put into place
before development commences
This land is already earmarked for development and putting affordable houses close to areas of
employment should reduce travel costs and carbon emissions.
This land is not in the green belt.
This land seems to have been available for several years, yet remain untouched.
This land was designated for high tech businesses and should remain so in future to aid employment
within the community
This makes some sense. However, building homes next to a busy road is probably not a good idea
because of the harm toxins in the air from fumes can do to the lungs in both adults and children. The
area is a long way from shops and facilities meaning people would drive into town so increasing car
usage. Housing here would not be any use for those without cars.
This may be the most realistic site to develop as there are employment and recreation facilities
already available
This must be used for employment. There are too few career opportunities in Macclesfield,
particularly manufacturing.
This should be a priority area as it is close to the new business park.
This site has been allocated for 30 years for employment development but is less than 50%
developed, and the buildings are 50% empty (according to Orbit Developments). The site is well
located and very accessible, so there are no obvious reasons why the site has remained largely
undeveloped other than a lack of demand. Cheshire East Council has recognised this by recently
permitting 100 houses on part of it. It is suggested that up to 300 houses could be built on the site.
This would help to take the pressure off the Green Belt. In addition, housing would be more
compatible with the surrounding housing areas.
developed, and the buildings which have been built are 50% empty (according to Orbit
Development). The site is well located and very accessible, so there are no obvious reasons why the
site has remained largely underdeveloped other than lack of demand. Cheshire East Council has
recognised this by recently permitting 100 houses on part of it. It is suggested that up to 300 houses
could be built on this site. This would help to take the pressure off the Green Belt. In addition,
housing would be more compatible with the surrounding housing area.
developed, and the buildings which have been built are 50% empty (according to Orbit
Developments). The site is well located and very accessible, so there are no obvious reasons why the
site has remained largely undeveloped other than a lack of demand. Cheshire East Council has
Page 192
recognised this by recently permitting 100 houses on part of it. It is suggested that up to 300 houses
could be built on the site. This would help to take the pressure off the Green Belt. In addition,
housing would be more compatible with the surrounding housing areas.
developed, and the buildings are 50% empty (according to Orbit Developments). The site is well
located and very accessible, so there are no obvious reasons why this site has remained largely
undeveloped other than a lack of demand. Cheshire East Council has recognised this by recently
permitting 100 houses on part of it. It is suggested that up to 300 houses could be built on the site.
This would help to take the pressure off the Green Belt. In addition, housing would be more
compatible with surrounding housing areas.
This site has been allocated for employment development for many years, but is less than 50%
developed, and much of the buildings are empty. The site is well located and very accessible, so
there are no obvious reasons why the site has remained largely undeveloped other than a lack of
demand. Cheshire East Council has recognised this by recently permitting 100 houses on part of it. It
is suggested that up to 300 houses could be built on the site. This would help to take the pressure off
the Green Belt. In addition, housing would be more compatible with the surrounding housing areas.
This site has been an eyesore for many years - it is not really green and should therefore take priority
for development.
This site has been prime for development for many years. There is access out of town towards
Manchester where most employment would serve the residents and the site is pretty much derelict
so environmental issues are at a minimum.
This site has good road access and some reasonable public transport. It can also be served by cycle
tracks in the area.
This site has potential for development of up to 300 houses; this would help to take the pressure off
the Green Belt. In addition, housing would be more compatible with the surrounding housing areas.
This site has the merit of proximity to the town centre, and consequent reduced carbon footprint.
This site is adjacent to existing housing and employment land. Either type of development could be
accommodated though my preference would be for high tech employment land.
This site provides an exiting opportunity to provide good quality housing on the part of the site
adjacent to Manchester road, which is already surrounded by housing. The existing business park
has many years of further development opportunity for offices etc. The area should be viewed as
two separate proposals. Leaving the existing business park for further business expansion, not
housing, and changing the use of the Manchester road end of the site to housing.
This site was purchased in the early 1980s and has stood derelict ever since. It would be ideal for
housing development with access onto the old road into Macclesfield.
This site would have good access to the silk road
This would be a good site for more houses as the business park is much smaller that originally
planned and much land is unused.
This would only extend the present housing/ business environment and would not be too intrusive
This would sensibly extend existing business and residential use without affecting Green Belt.
This would be a good site as it is already marked for commercial development which has not
happened even though the land has been available for years.
To the best of my knowledge this area has never been in full use and could be used for residential
purposes. It is not in the green belt.
Tytherington business park is the main source of readily available employment land in the town and
should be retained
Tytherington is already an extension of the town so may as well add to that.
Use this land for employment, business and homes as an extension of what already exists
We consider that the first priority for new housing and employment uses should be the existing built
Page 193
up area. Within this, there are two very large sites which have remained undeveloped for over 20
years. These are Tytherington Business Park (Site D) and South Macclesfield Development Area (Site
H). The former is largely owned by a house builder, and a large section of the latter by Cheshire East
Council.
We need our Green Belts/ Woodland ; plants, birds, animals must be protected
Well developed area. Adding to this development would make sense by taking new development
further north.
What about the many vacant business sites on Tytherington Business Park? Is there really any need
for more office sites at present?
What will the burden be on schools?
Why employment there too, how much housing are left?
Why is this development area not extended to the other side of the road? Where the word
"Options" is printed on the map? Tytherington has yet more potential for expansion but this does
not seem to have been considered at all.
Would also need enhanced "community facilities"
Would result in additional traffic onto the Poynton road which will be overloaded particularly if the
re-development of the BAE site at Woodford proceeds.
Would result in loss of only available allocated site for employment purposes. Option compromised
by recent pre-emptive grant of permission at Larkwood Drive
Yes, for employment only.
land in the first instance. You don’t need to consider more business use we have loads of business
Page 194
Q3. Site E: Land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road (Housing)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site E in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site E
A few more houses could be built on brownfill sites here.
A more difficult area to develop topographically. Don't agree with further incursion into the Green
Belt towards the Peak Park.
A piece of Green Belt land without any access except on to farm tracks, or by building a road to
connect with Lark Hall Road. The volume of traffic generated by 240 dwellings would result in total
Gridlock! A few years ago houses off Higher Fence Road collapsed and several were pulled down due
to mine workings in this area many decades ago.
A small amount of houses, if any could be built here.
Access to any development would cause problems, particularly from the Buxton road end. Opening
up the road which is currently gated (locked) would create a rat run between Hurdsfield and Buxton
road and detract from the leisure and nature facility of Swan’s Pool facilities for families and young
children. One of the attractions of this part of Macclesfield is the proximity of 'country' to town
centre which is enjoyed by walkers, runners, cyclists, boaters and would be eroded by development
of this section of the canal.
Access/views of hills could be impaired
Accessibility to this area would become impossible as Higher Fence Road is totally unsuitable for any
further traffic. This lovely area, which is a small local attraction for many locals would be destroyed
SO PLEASE THINK AGAIN.
According to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), there is a shortage of
housing and housing land in the Macclesfield area, and in the SHLAA the site is referred to on page
3275 as being a site suitable for consideration for housing development, for a potential 237 houses.
In the Macclesfield Town Strategy, more details are given of the estimated housing requirement for
the next 20 years, and the site is described as a potential area for housing development, and being
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site E
Page 195
capable of delivering about 240 houses (Page 16, Area E). No other prospective sites of any
significance exist on the East side of Macclesfield, all the others being to the South and Southwest,
where there are already problems of traffic congestion. Unlike some other sites in the area, the site
is not on boggy ground or subject to flooding. The site is well served by public transport. There is a
junior school within walking distance of the site. The site’s current designation within the green belt
is anomalous, as most of the green belt in this part of Macclesfield is to the East of Buxton Road. The
site is partially surrounded by existing housing. The major beneficiary, if this site were developed for
housing, would be East Cheshire Hospice, our largest local charity, whose benefit to the community
is beyond question. The second largest beneficiary is the East Cheshire Branch of the NSPCC. An
access point to the site, from Lark Hall Road, is across a ransom strip which we believe to be owned
by Cheshire East Council. Accordingly, if the site were developed, the local authority could benefit
financially.
Again a beautiful area. Why spoil it when there are much better options.
Again, this is an area with some wild green spaces - why build here?
Agree with allocating the land for housing but only for high-density 'eco' design
Already urbanised, therefore any argument would be fruitless
Already well built up some more cannot really make a huge difference subject of course to suitable
infrastructure
Although more housing may be required in Macclesfield we strongly disagree to the use of site E for
additional housing. The area between Buxton Road and Hurdsfield Road provides a much needed
"Green Lung" for walkers, children with families, horse riders and cyclists. This area on the edge of
the Peak District National park, is on the hilly side of Macclesfield, and in part as a result, is a rare
area of natural beauty yet so close to the heart of the town. It includes many mature trees and
hedgerows, Canal side walks, Swans Pool and local (historic) reservoirs all of which bring bird life,
migratory birds and other wildlife into almost the heart of our lovely town. Herons, Canada Geese,
Swans, Owls etc. There is also a well used network of non-vehicular paths and tracks in this area
which give access to this pocket of countryside. All of the above would be at risk if the area were
transformed for housing. The potential road network changes around Higher Fence Road, and
particularly around Puss Bank Primary School could also be problematic, adding further traffic to an
area which suffers congestion at peak periods. In summary the "loss" of this area to new housing,
would not only be a loss to immediate locals but to the town as a whole. Some of the other potential
housing site options listed in the plan would, we believe, have much less negative impact in terms of
environment, recreation, and traffic, and would provide greater numbers of new residences.
Although this may appear to be blatant "NIMBYism", because of where I live, I do believe there are
significant reasons to reject this option, and I hope you will treat my comments in the same
objective way that I have attempted to make them! The 2 options to the East will impinge on one of
the main "attractions" of the town i.e. the aspect onto the hills. From many viewpoints e.g. Bunker
Hill, Sparrow Park, Mill Street, glimpses of the green hills running down towards the Town have
caused people to remark what a wonderful place it is that we live - our previous MP labelled this as
the "green lung" running from the Pennines into Macclesfield. Although there are obviously other
Green Belt areas at risk in the Sites above, none of them (in my opinion) evoke the same "gut
reaction" as those on the East of the town. With specific reference to this option, there has been
significant mining operation in this area, in the past. I have a copy of a hand drawn map (from 1923)
identifying the location of coal seams, pit shafts etc. which leads me to believe that development of
this area would not be especially straightforward or desirable, because of the danger of subsidence. I
Page 196
have a copy of this map if anybody would like to see it.
Although this part of Macclesfield has certain qualities, it is important to ensure development is
sustainable and focused close to the town centre core. There are still many development
opportunities within Macclesfield town centre which should be looked at first before resorting to
developing green areas.
Another area of built up housing and huge traffic issues
Any development here would be contrary to Objective 6 Environment which aims to preserve access
to and the attractiveness of the surrounding countryside. This area includes one of the few stretches
of canal (bridge 35 to Buxton Road) within the town with open views over countryside/woodland to
Macclesfield. Any development on the town side of the canal between Sandringham Road and
Barracks Lane would severely detract from the view which is an amenity for the residents of the area
and for visiting canal users. I believe that the fields on either side of the canal at this point should be
preserved for full enjoyment of the canal. The area includes very attractive undulating fields
intersected by a stream and pools with many mature trees including 2 magnificent oaks. The area is
prone to flooding and water logging and would be unsuitable for affordable development. Access is
another major issue - Hurdsfield Road is already too narrow for the volume of traffic and Higher
Fence road/Barracks Lane currently provide quiet pedestrian access to the canal and pathways to
the reservoirs. This recreational area would be destroyed by any upgrading of the road to support
development. The road would also be used as a rat run.
Any more building on this Green Belt area would cause congestion of traffic on present roads
Area E between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road access possibilities are limited. Landscape impact
could be adverse would lose the amenity of countryside being brought close to the centre of town.
Difficult site to develop without harm to natural and heritage features (Macclesfield Canal
Conservation Area). Previously considered in late 1970s but rejected on appeal for adverse
landscape impact reasons. Green Belt function of urban containment and prevention of sprawl.
Area E includes Footpaths Macclesfield 7 and 34 (the canal towpath). It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F,
G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have to be a strong case for these i.e. no alternative
suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage more people to live in the town centre but
none of the Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2 (p10) includes improving connectivity and
linkages to and within the town centre. I draw your attention to Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53,
which has been closed for three years awaiting the availability of funds to repair retaining walls and,
at the time of writing, no date has been set for the execution of these repairs.
As a local resident of this area I could not disagree more strongly. Do NOT build new housing or
commercial developments on this piece of green belt. People have bought existing houses around
this green belt area at great cost and do not wish to see this area of great beauty ruined by building
work that will greatly reduce the standard of the immediate environment for those existing
properties not to mention the effect on value and desirability. Also all the other potential
development sites can deliver a much larger number of new homes/employment.
As far as I can see this is adjacent to high-intensity residential areas and industrial developments so
there would be little significantly adverse effect of development - although again not ideal to be
building on greenbelt.
As previously mentioned, this area of Macclesfield is a rural site, close to the hills and with easy
access to the Peak District, building in this area would severely compromise the features of this
beautiful part of our town.
As stated in your own document Green Belt areas should only be considered in exceptional
circumstances. This site is set to the east of the town where initial consideration of development
options deemed it inappropriate to develop. The side of town already suffers form traffic
congestion, something that additional housing would only add to.
As with C this fills in spaces and encourages town centre
Page 197
Close to existing employment opportunities, thus allowing people to walk to work rather than drive.
Local infrastructure more likely to be able to cope with increased demand.
Close to the town centre and surrounded on 3 sides by existing development. Good design could
utilise the potential of the canal.
Close to town centre
Cntrary to the objective of access to countryside and impinge on the hills and national park
Could be classed as infill. There is already intensive housing development on three sides of the site.
Definitely NO. To uproot the beautiful Hurdsfield, Buxton countryside for just 240 houses would be
disastrous. It would be an eyesore on the beautiful hills and landscape
Depends where exactly it is. Would not wish to see development beyond the canal to the east of
Macclesfield. The west of the canal seems naturally to fall in the arena of the town centre with
excellent transport links and easy access to shops.
Development at site E is unnecessary and would destroy the character of the area. The existing
residential development is well established. The existing residents would be alienated by any new
development which would be contrary to the council’s recreational and environmental strategies as
explained above
Development here would add to traffic problems on the B5470, on Buxton Road and on Fence
Avenue. These are all pretty grim already.
Development here would be contrary to GB purpose
Development options 6.11 Area Ref E of Proposed Housing Areas This Area is not suitable for
building any type of housing, being adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area. The whole
of the proposed Section E must remain in the Green Belt as it is a much loved recreational walking
area and a place of natural beauty.
Difficult terrain which would be expensive to develop, and real problems of access
Difficult to see how developing this area could avoid increasing the congestion on Hurdsfield road,
Buxton Road and in the town.
Disagree strongly - Greenbelt land and proximity to canal (see objective 6 Environment : bullet point
6: To improve and enhance the Macclesfield Canal.... - this contradicts this objective) Additionally at
peak times the local road network is jammed up due to Kings School traffic
Disagree with proposals to use this area. The canal path, Swains pool paths and paths around the
reservoirs in this area are well used. Access to the countryside from the town is an important part of
life in Macclesfield and the character of the town; spoiling this well-used area of green space to
provide only a small fraction of the required houses seems a very poor option. Development of this
area would be contrary to the strategy's aims of improving access to the canal area - it would change
the character of the canal in a bad way.
DO NOT build on this site, you would irreversibly destroy a much loved place of local beauty.
Do not support those in Green Belt.
Don’t agree with the housing development on green belt land
Don't build on Green Belt
Expand the reservoir provision to sustain the town expansion and keep as a green space and make
better public use. Limited access in this area for transport. Additional houses would severely
overload the existing transport.
Expensive to develop owing to access problems including a canal bridge and areas of steep sided
Page 198
valley and streams.
Filling-in the only section of green belt along the canal through Macclesfield would go against the
statement under Environment of enhancing the canal for leisure & recreation.
For many years (as far as I can remember) this has been a favourite place and route for children to
go to Swans' Pool a mere "country lane" than a possible route for fast traffic in a built up area! This
established Green Belt area should be preserved and not encroached upon with the building of two
hundred and forty houses. This area is the only green area in the east of Macclesfield.
Good, because it is another infill site
Great concern over this application to build 240 houses in an area of beauty and educational
importance. Having lived in the close environs for over 20 years we have come to fully appreciate its
true value; namely an area of peace and tranquility to de-stress after high pressure working days. A
place with significant wildlife, Our children now 17 and 13 have grown up with all aspects of nature
in the area and full appreciation of nature and the countryside. They are perfectly content with
walks in the country and being outdoors, Rather than the need to be at the cinema or theme parks.
Of course it is not just the 240 houses destroying the land but the massive disruption as a result of
building roadways and installing the services required, contributing to this mess and destruction.
Increased traffic feeding into already busy main roads
Greatly concerned that this is green belt land and should be kept as such. This is a beautiful area and
well used by families , nature lovers and walkers. The reservoirs are teeming with wildlife kingfishers, tufted ducks etc . It would be completely wrong to build 240 houses here. Development
of this land would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. Green spaces such as this should be
kept for local people to enjoy. Nature should be protected not destroyed. The land is on the fringe of
Macclesfield and we should not be allowing the town to sprawl further. Once the land is built on it
will be lost for good. This particular green belt land must be the most picturesque and well loved and
used land in the Macclesfield area. To lose it to housing development would be a complete disgrace.
We cannot let it happen for the sake of future generations.
Green Belt
Green belt heading towards Peak district - keep it so
Green Belt including agricultural land. Unsuitable. SHOULD BE REJECTED
Green belt land
Green belt land. Natural beauty spot , with many water courses and ponds invaluable for wildlife flora and fauna. Limited access onto difficult terrain, including boggy land . Increased traffic would
be dangerous for local schools and residents.
Green belt should remain in place.
Green Belt should remain protected.
Green Belt Site. This location is visible from the Town Centre and roads leading out of the town. It
would be a travesty to turn this into just another housing development.
Green Belt, but could reconsider as last resort
Green designations should be kept
Greenbelt land. Do not develop here.
Grotesquely inappropriate proposals for conservation Green Belt area of Natural Beauty.
Has been on the cards for a long time
Having lived here for 57 years too much Green Belt land has disappeared and used for buildings. We
opposed to Roewood Lane, Pine Road, and Sandringham Rd to no avail. Please leave some Green
Page 199
Belt for our pleasure in the future
Higher Fence Road is not suitable for more traffic which would be Dangerous as it is so narrow and it
is Green Belt area. Emerging on to Hurdsfield Road is bad enough now as Hurdsfield Road is so busy.
How would these houses be reached? The current access is difficult. The current open fields
between Hurdsfield Rd and Buxton Rd are an important addition to the hills above us. The pollution
caused by building here will ruin our atmosphere and peace. How will this be accessed? Barracks
Lane and Cottage Lanes are narrow one way streets. Higher Fence Road is small and potholed. The
canal towpath will lose its tranquillity and beauty when dominated by housing
I admit to being biased, but feel it would be very damaging. It is the nearest the countryside comes
to town. It may not be geographically very practical.
I am opposed to any development on Green Belt Land, especially the area between Hurdsfield Road
& Buxton Road. This is an area of outstanding beauty which benefits many residents of the town
who appreciate its proximity to the town centre. Such areas are rare & irreplaceable.
I am very familiar with this area and would be disappointed to see it developed; I am aware of it's
popularity and value the green space provided
I am very much in disagreement with this proposal. This area being on the edge of Macclesfield and
has always been one of fields for livestock, birds and wildlife. The housing development in my
opinion would really spoil this side of the town that has always been one of the most desirable
places to live. It would create increased pollution due to the extra number of cars as well as increase
the traffic up and down Buxton rd and Hurdsfield rd, both of which already suffer from large
numbers of lorries, motorbikes and cars leaving the town for the Peak District and beyond. Many
people use the area for walking and outdoor activities which the council should be encouraging
particularly after this summer of sport.
I am very strongly against the housing development on this part of Macclesfield. This greenbelt land
is of highly natural beauty which has lots of wild life and adds to the character of the town. This land
holds reservoirs and lots of wildlife. Within this land there are many mineshafts which would be a
great danger to the new houses built here. How can the local school (puss bank) hold more children
when it can't currently manage with the numbers we have today. Having more houses here would
remove the character and the country feel living, that the current houses around this area already
has. Which I feel is very hard to find within the town and this side of town thrives in it and is
important to the town and economics. The two largest employees of Macclesfield is AstraZeneca
and the General Hospital, with the down turn and many redundancies these companies keep on
having how do you see the need for so many more houses within Macclesfield?? Please think about
this before removing one true natural beauty spot!
I can see a case for the land west of the canal but not to the east, this is supposed to be green belt.
need space.
I disagree with the draft pan in relation to area E land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road
.There is insufficient roads for increased traffic from housing putting a great risk to children going to
on these roads as would be forced to walk on roadway hence increased risk of accidents.
Page 200
brown field sites within the town; these should all be developed (in a way sympathetic to the town's
I do not think this will make a big impact on this area.
I don't know the area so I will neither agree or disagree, but the Green Belt should be preserved
wherever possible.
I feel that this strongly contradicts objective 6:- Environment. This area is a vital Greenfield area for
the residents of Hurdsfield/Buxton Road. Also, an increase housing would have an associated
increase in traffic that would have an impact on Puss Bank School.
I have great concerns regarding the local wildlife seen from my house backing onto that land,
including kingfishers, herons, ducks and other birds that may be disturbed. I am also greatly
concerned about the effect that building 240 houses would have in terms of the light in my house
and the levels of noise and increase to traffic, in an area that is already exceptionally busy due to the
local schools.
I might support some development West of the Canal.
I neither agree nor disagree with a development at this site personally, however given your own
sustainability criteria site E2 it is a better site than Site C to develop. Yet we are informed that this
was a site that the stakeholders were in agreement should not be developed. How is this possible?
What criteria are the stakeholders using? I feel as part of the consultation process we should be told
why there was an overwhelming consensus against, what implications this has in terms of the
consultation process i.e. will it be considered equally along with the other sites in regards to this
sustainability consultation process and if not what this says about the credibility of the process as a
whole. This again shows that this process is not clear and transparent.
I object strongly to the release of the GB area between Fence Ave and Lark Hall. This area is a much
loved place of beauty and recreation.
I object to any further development in region E - Land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road.
This area is not only currently Green Belt land, but is also widely regarded (and used) by a wide
variety of the local public as an amenity
I object to the suggestion to build on the area of GB from Fence Ave to Larkhall Rd.
the town.
go ahead on the hillside to the East of Swans pool then the natural drainage to the pool would be
over the coming years. Swans pool is an easily accessible water source that our local Fire brigade can
to put them out? Local politicians heads might roll? In conclusion, again based on local knowledge,
Page 201
hillside views over our town, the delights of our industrial heritage and Swans pool, is a not just a
current local politicians.
I should like to recommend strongly that this area remain green belt. It is a part of Macclesfield
which is a home for wildlife, as well as being a much loved area for recreational walking, especially
those of us who are blessed with canine friends. I feel that this area helps to provide local residents
with the work / life balance which is necessary for healthy living. Thank you for very kindly offering
Macclesfield residents the opportunity of having our say on Cheshire East Council's proposals for our
town. My warm thanks, too, for all the work of our councillors on behalf of all who live in
Macclesfield.
I strongly disagree as this is green belt and it should be preserved. I grew up around here and I feel it
would be a terrible to create any further development in this area. It is home to many people
already and is enjoyed by many, many more as a place for quiet contemplation and family outings - a
place that brings people in intimate connection with nature. It is also home to a wide variety of wild
life, such as - birds, bats, badgers, squirrels, etc, not to mention insect life - and I feel it would be
deeply detrimental to the ecology of the place to commence with building that would take a
prolonged period of time to complete and then the added people living in the area would potentially
degrade it further. I'm sure I am not alone in my views regarding this site.
Buxton Road - this has always been a small oasis close to town enjoyed by all of the local community
. The walk way trough Swans Pool, Barracks Lane and Higher Fence Road is a unique environment in
attending to object to the proposed plans
I support the small scale proposals, and this site has the advantage of being closest to the railway
station, and the town centre.
I support this development as it is easily accessed from both Hurdsfield and Buxton Roads and is
close Hurdsfield employment areas.
I think we should protect this Green Belt
I would like to know how traffic would access this site, very narrow roads from both ends.
leaving the greenbelt intact. Sites A, B , C, E, F,G, I and J are all used as recreational lungs of the town
which link to small internal green spaces. Sites E, C, J are fingers of greenbelt that stretch almost into
the heart of the town and provide much appreciated recreational and beautiful places for the town’s
residents. For Site E which is closest to where I live:- last time the Council tried to do this, the plan
was to access the land through Lark Hall Crescent. This is completely unsuitable as there is only one
route of exit from this estate and it is too busy now. The same issues of access also applies to Higher
Fence Avenue and Fence Avenue. The existing public transport system is far from satisfactory and
therefore extending the towns boundaries will put more pressure on an already inadequate service.
If there had to be somewhere this is already surrounded by housing
If this includes Kings School then the Planning Policy and Planning system there - only allowed for
the development of the developable footprint (the School buildings, certain extent of hard standing
and in the main, protection of the playing fields, creation of LEAP [to offset a part loss of an existing
floodlit synthetic turf pitch], a Section 106 developer contribution to fund a new floodlit synthetic
turf pitch for community use at Fallibroome HS [now Academy] etc). The lands around
Page 202
Hurdsfield/Buxton Rd also need to be considered as retained as areas of natural beauty/leisure
amenity (within the Green Belt). There are historic views to Hurdsfield Church/Parish Church from
these hillsides/Pennine uplands lands and the area is littered with natural watercourses and sluices
that used to feed the historic mills further down into Macclesfield.
I'm commenting on this area because I live here and it is familiar to me. It is an area of great beauty,
used for recreational purposes by a large number of people from all over Macclesfield. It is also a
significant wild life habitat. The land is quite steep in places and there are several old reservoirs in
this area, which together with the lie of the land, and the line of the canal, would restrict the options
for housing development. Road access is not easy for many parts of it either. For example, I live off
Barracks Lane, with its narrow one-way system - this road already becomes very congested when
parents drop off and pick up their children from Puss Bank School. It really wouldn't take much more
traffic along here, and there seems to be little chance of widening the roads without some
significant civil engineering that would cause major damage to the land and existing property in the
area.
In previous Local Plans this is Green Belt and Area of Special County Value (ASCV), as per NE1, and
contains 2 Nature Conservation Priority Areas (NCPA) as per NE16
contains 2 Nature Conservation Priority Areas (NCPA) as per NE16. Additional comments have been
added at the end of this report. In particular, the area is a local beauty spot, used extensively by
walkers, cyclists and runners. Developing the area would destroy this. The access is not adequate to
support the housing. The Barracks Lane/ Cottage Lane access is narrow and one way and includes a
large primary school. Footpaths and road are already inadequate for the number of people using the
route. Developing the area would 'open up' Higher Fence Road to through traffic from Hurdsfield to
Buxton Road. This would be very unsafe for pedestrians and the junction at Buxton Road is not
adequate to support the traffic. It would be very detrimental to the wellbeing of local people and is
counter to your declared strategy of preserving the Macclesfield Canal area.
contains 2 Nature Conservation Priority Areas (NCPA) as per NE16. The area is a local beauty spot,
used extensively by walkers, cyclists and runners. Developing the area would destroy this. The access
is not adequate to support housing development. The Barracks Lane/ Cottage Lane access is narrow
and one way and includes a large primary school. Footpaths and road are already inadequate for the
number of people using the route. Developing the area would 'open up' Higher Fence Road to
through traffic from Hurdsfield to Buxton Road. This would be very unsafe for pedestrians and the
junction at Buxton Road is not adequate to support the traffic. It would be very detrimental to the
wellbeing of local people and is counter to your declared strategy of preserving the Macclesfield
Canal area.
In the Green Belt. I'm not sure exactly where this site is, but Barracks Lane near Puss Bank School is
already a nightmare.
Initially up to the Macclesfield canal only, with transport infrastructure for future expansion across
the canal.
Insufficient infrastructure planned to support growth.
Is a green lung for local area. Development would alter the nature of the local communities
Is also a NCPA and therefore likely to be inappropriate for development.
town?
Page 203
and school closure. Local schools are full (Primary and Secondary).
It is a wedge of green fields, lanes, ponds and trees from Fence Avenue up to the hills. A beautiful
area to walk into along Higher Fence Road and the canal. This is treasured green belt and into the
hills land of special county value. A touch of agrarian England before the industrial revolution. Not to
be destroyed, no matter what.
It is near the Town Centre and will bring life back into it.
It is not at all clear what is proposed here. Is this west or east of the canal? The space between Kings
School and the Canal would appear the most suitable.
It takes away the green belt and the infrastructure of roads are inadequate.
It would be better to develop this side of town a bit more, bearing in mind that its character comes
partly from it not being very developed. But you but still need more use of BROWNFIELD sites
Its in the green belt - however is the least worse option in terms of impact on green spaces
Keep as agriculture we need to feed the local population
Keep as green belt - a green wedge into centre of town
Keep greenbelt
KEEP THIS GREEN BELT. A beautiful area - an ideal environment for all kinds of wildlife. Keep this as it
is definitely not a concrete jungle
Keep this wedge of green belt, canal conservation area, land of special county value just as it is. A
beautiful are of countryside with a touch of a long forgotten agricultural age. Higher Fence road is
private unmade section. The canal and the fields all around it.
Land already has been subject to mass protests in the past and is the last part of the Pennines
coming into the Town, an area of natural beauty used by local people for walking, jogging, dog
walking and children.
Leave alone. Important site.
Lets keep our green belt
Lets see what plans could be developed here. This is close to town but needs to be done well and to
avoid the views being impacted
Lovely area would be blighted.
Lower impact on character of the town, compared to other green belt options- seems to contain
rather than expand town
Main roads are narrow/dangerous in this area and significant expansion would put increase risk of
collisions & pedestrian injury.
Natural growth on the edge of town, then housing
nNd to protect views out to open countryside
Need to retain this unique mix of greenery and residential as it is
Neither Barracks Lane nor Cottage Lane already struggling with traffic can cope with access
development. Swans Pool is enjoyed by all ages and must not be sacrificed.
No , Green Belt
No comment: I do not know this site
Location, Timing, Discharge rates and location, Water demand and connexion points United Utilities
PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity issues as
Page 204
Macclesfield.
No secondary school and one primary school already full; area of natural beauty
Not geographically viable due to canal
Not suitable, too hilly
On the edges of Macclesfield so more ideal for community on that side of town
One of the most beautiful aspects of Macclesfield! Madness
Only a small are suitable. Most wooded and ravines south of canal and north of canal soon becomes
farm land
Our housing is on the south side of Lansdowne street which backs onto this land site E. We believe
any new Housing in close proximity to our property would be in violation of our human rights Our
right for respect for private family life. Also this is one of last parcels of open farm land that is part of
the heritage of Macclesfield.
Petition signed by 1008
Please keep the Green Belt land between Fence Ave and Lark Hall. It should not be built on
Poor access on steep hillside roads, traffic problems in winter
Possibly too small to make a difference. transport problems
Potential access problems from an already busy area
Previous Green Belt needs protecting. Concerned about increasing traffic on roads leading to
development of new housing. All brown field sites known to Cheshire East Council should be looked
at first and built upon first.
Prime countryside on the approach to the Peak District. An attractive asset of the town that should
be left untouched
Prime Greenfield site, local wildlife. Unsuitable as no roads to support the additional number of
suggested homes. Disagree with the point it would be for local employees as there are no jobs in the
area. Would change the inherent character of the area.
Promote for leisure instead
Redevelop the brown field sites like the empty mills
Redevelop the site of Victoria Flats area
Relatively close to the town centre facilities. One way Street system may become unworkable.
Residents of this area, including myself, are unsure where plans are for. Is it the area above the canal
between Kings School and Swan's pool? Or is it the higher fields above the 2 reservoirs? Or both?
The higher land has been proven, in the past, to be unstable due to its historical use. And access off
Buxton road would be difficult. Residents need clarification.
Retention of the canal corridor and other spaces must dictate the scale of development.
Rising land, a lure to big housing area. Keep clear "Back cloth" to town
Roads are inadequate to handle current traffic, never mind an increase
Site E does not warrant any more housing developments. It has already been classified as a nature
conservation area, it is an amenity to the local community, and there are always families with
children enjoying the area and its surroundings. It supports a diversity of wildlife, e.g. swans, geese,
ducks, moorhens, herons, and many other migratory wildfowl as well as amphibians, toads, frogs,
newts and water rats which are rare around Macclesfield. To build more houses would destroy the
area and affect the precious wildlife The infrastructure of this area is already stretched, with road
congestion around Puss Bank School, drains and water supply already stretched to the limit. This
area is close to the Peak National Park and any encroachment towards it would be detrimental to all
Page 205
who live in and visit this area.
Site E should not be considered for housing. It is an area unique in Macclesfield, linking the edge of
the Peak District National Park with the Macclesfield canal, and is easily accessible from the town
centre. It is of value to the town in 1/ Archaeological significance - reservoirs to former Macclesfield
mills, and as a former mining area, 2/ Amenity value - with the canal tow path, foot paths &
bridleways, the area provides an amenity for walkers, equestrians, and cyclists, 3/ Nature
conservation - the reservoirs provide a habitat for wildfowl, both resident & migratory including
mute swan, mallard, tufted duck, goosander, grebe, kingfisher, heron, coot, and moorhen, and
attract many other species of bird, amphibians & mammals. There is no satisfactory route for access
to the area. Neither Barracks Lane (always congested at peak periods around Puss Bank School) nor
Higher Fence Road are adequate and the costs of additional infrastructure would be
disproportionately high. There could be no discreet or sympathetic development on this site,
exposed as it is to the town, and the loss of this special area to housing would be a loss for the whole
town.
degree of devastation to the local fauna and flora. This land is close to the town centre so is likely to
have a beneficial effect on the businesses in the town centre
Small number of houses not warrant disruption
Some of this area is protected due to its status Place of Natural History and its wildlife
Strongly disagree for the fundamental reason that other options that do not change the character of
the area forever appear to be available
Strongly disagree to Site E. Why take away one of our very few green areas in Macclesfield? Such a
lovely area for walking and feeling like you are in the countryside, while still so close to town. Lovely
for children to be close to nature, I.e. see the ducks, farm animals, wildlife, exploring etc. Very few
areas left in Macclesfield like this, would be such a shame to see it disappear .
Strongly disagree to the loss of this valuable piece of green belt land
Strongly disagree! This is green belt land! This is used by local farmers and has a huge wildlife
community
Strongly Disagree, the site is green belt and used by farmer, locals alike. The effects to local nature
sites would be awful!
Strongly disagree. This areas is beautiful, important for wildlife, provides a good link to the canal, is
heavily utilised by the local community and schools for leisure.
Strongly disagree. Valuable Green Belt that is enjoyed by schools, walkers, cyclists and a haven for
wildlife. The ground is unsuitable for building as it contains mine shafts.
That would also destroy an area of natural beauty leading up to the National Park. Again, better
areas can be used without ruining the attractive approach to the Park .
The area designated E between the Hurdsfield and Buxton roads encompasses amongst other things
two farms, the canal and three bridges, two reservoirs, pools and ponds, pastureland, a private
unmade road with limited access, and footpaths all of which draw in local people from the
Hurdsfield estate and from the Buxton road vicinity as places in which to relax and enjoy the
countryside and wildlife on their doorstep. Insert 250 houses and their associated infrastructure - for
example, civil engineers for a start would have a major job on their hands to deconstruct the
Victorian built reservoirs and associated pipe work - and you would shatter what is essentially a rural
idyll on the edge of town, open to all, and replace it with a development and numbers of people,
which the site and locality would be hard pushed to support in terms of schooling, amenities and
recreational facilities, let alone be able to replace the unique area and its attributes which are
universally admired in the locality. A number of the objectives of the Town Plan would fall victim to
Page 206
such a development, not least the maintenance of the environment quite apart from the breach of
the Green Belt on very dubious grounds. I strongly disagree with the suggested Site E.
The area is a wonderful stretch of the canal linking Buxton Road and Hurdsfield with the naturally
important Swans pool next to it; it provides easy walking and cycling opportunities for all. It is the
one are without any obvious access to it, the roads bordering it are small and clearly unsuitable
(one-way Barracks Lane being far too congested already). The area is a little piece of quiet and
tranquillity close by to the town centre, enclosed by two schools and accessible to many residents,
to lose this piece of Green belt would be a huge loss to Macclesfield.
The area of open land to the east of Fence Avenue has long been designated as a "Nature
Conservation Priority Area" It has also been called a "Green Lung" to the countryside for local
residents and walkers and of course is "Green Belt" Page 18 of the Macclesfield Draft Town Strategy
states that the "Stakeholder Panel gave an overwhelming consensus against using those sites
located to the east of Macclesfield"
The development of this site would result in the loss of open countryside land which as stated within
the SA has been identified as upland foot slopes, containing small patches of heathland, streams and
medieval field patterns.
The Draft Town Strategy identifies a number of potential significant development sites that are
adjacent to the Macclesfield Canal, most notably sites E, F and G. Should any of these sites be taken
forward, the Town Strategy or other strategic development sites policy should set out the need for
the design and layout of new developments to make a positive contribution to the waterway. It is
also important to recognise that significant new developments in the vicinity of the canal network
place extra liabilities and burdens upon the waterway infrastructure, particularly as a result of the
use of the waterway and towpath as a form of open space and as a sustainable transport route. In
addition there is often an increased burden in terms of on-going maintenance costs for maintaining
an attractive waterway setting, for example the removal of litter from the water and maintenance of
the towpath.
can be seen.
The green belt land between Buxton Road and Hurdsfield road is the closest countryside to
Macclesfield town centre - use of this green belt land would affect the whole character of the area
and be extremely detrimental.
The land is embraced within one ownership known as the Lark Hall Estate which has some
prominent local charitable institutions that would benefit from its development and is sustainably
located in terms of many facilities including local shops, and is even within walking distance of the
town centre and railway station. There is a primary school close by and bus routes on both Buxton
Road to the south and Hurdsfield Road, which lies to the north. The Draft Consultation document
currently indicates that around 3,500 new homes should be delivered by 2030 and that there will be
the need to review and adjust existing Green Belt boundaries to accommodate the majority of these.
Page 207
There are, however, indications from national sources that population increases over the past 10
years have been higher than expected and that this will lead to more households requiring housing.
As a result, it is very likely that the forthcoming Office of National Statistics Household Projections
will reflect the population increase and may well result in a need to reappraise and raise the housing
numbers to be accommodated within Macclesfield. As the second largest township in Cheshire East,
with a large town centre that is anticipating some regeneration and has good transport links,
Macclesfield is well placed to benefit from additional housing and the economic benefits that would
bring.
The loss of Green Belt is a concern
The Macclesfield canal forms part of the Cheshire Ring which draws people from far and wide. The
canal and the adjacent undeveloped areas must be protected for the benefit of Macclesfield
residents and those from further afield. The canal/towpath is utilised daily for recreation by boaters
and canoeists, cyclists, ramblers, dog-walkers, families etc. The canal provides a valuable
recreational facility and also a valuable wildlife corridor, both of which would be ruined by
development in the vicinity. Many families, dog-walkers, nature lovers and ramblers also enjoy the
benefits of visiting Swans' pool on Higher Fence Road (where swans have returned to breed
successfully after a break of many years) and walking to the reservoirs via the public footpath
leading from Whitney Croft. This area provides a valuable recreational amenity and an area for birds
and wildlife which would be lost if the Lark Hall development were to proceed.
The Macclesfield town strategy sustainability appraisal splits this site into E1 and E2. Therefore it is
unclear what site E refers to. The land to the East of the canal I strongly disagree to development,
due to it's ecological, environmental and community benefits. Access to this area is also limited
through the existing roads and connection to mains drainage an issue along Barracks Lane. The land
to the West of the canal maybe more suitable, depending on scale and exact location.
The only way to proposed plan is via Higher Fence Road. This road is not suitable. Higher Fence Rd
after the canal bridge is a private road and gated. Road not capable of taking any increase of traffic
and current problem with large vehicles - very dangerous.
The other sites are far more appropriate for building housing. This area is on the edge of the Peak
District and in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is sufficient housing stock within this
area already.
The road access is currently very limited. The man route between Hurdsfield Rd and Buxton road is a
gated un adopted and unmade road. To the area above swan's Pool there is understand disused
mine shafts below ground making any development a major issue.
The transport links to this site are shocking and would increase traffic congestion.
The view of the hills from the town centre would be spoilt by more housing
The walk from Larkhall/ Ecton Road along the farm track to Roewood Lane takes you across some
beautiful countryside passing four pools full of wild life returning via the canal tow path.
Furthermore the walk can be easily achieved pushing a wheel chair or children’s buggy and yet it is
so close to the town. If 240 houses were built on this land it would destroy the environment for ever.
Ignoring the beauty that would be lost the plan is not viable, it is not a coincidence that there are so
Page 208
many wild life pools, the area in the past was used for mining and some years ago houses were built
adjoining this area but following major subsidence had to be demolished. Where would the ingress
access road(s) be to accommodate such numbers of additional vehicles? I suggest this plan be
quickly thrown into the rubbish bin.
There are already enough houses in this location. Jobs are few in the town and will create more
unemployment or more benefit claimants.
There is nowhere 240 homes could be built. This is an area used by hundreds of people for
recreational purposes - in fact people and cycle here drive here to walk around the reservoirs and
pathways. People use the area for running.
This a particularly beautiful area with historical significance which has been enjoyed by the local
community for generations and which must be preserved for future generations. It would be a
massive mistake to build houses here.
This area has been and should remain in the green belt.
This area has had no recent housing development and provides a unique "green lung" very close to
the town centre (unlike other proposed sites). It is in the Green Belt and provides valuable
recreational space for hundreds of households.
This area is close to quite densely developed housing and provides a valuable green belt amenity for
walking and relaxation. Changing the allowable use to housing would be a great pity.
This area is greenbelt. It is the habitat of beautiful flora and fauna and is the home of such creatures
as toads and foxes. It is an area which MANY local people visit as part of their leisure activities such
as runners, walkers, and families with small children who come to enjoy the countryside which is,
however, adjacent to the town. It also has a local beauty spot, Swan's Pool which is valued and
visited by many residents of Macclesfield, not just local residents. Higher Fence Avenue is currently a
safe place for families to walk. If this was opened up as a road, it would create a rat-run between the
Buxton Road and Hurdsfield Road. Some of the land is of a difficult terrain having watercourses
crossing through and under it, due to local pools and it can be very boggy in the autumn and winter.
Also, the access to this area is difficult with single track lanes. As Puss Bank School is situated in this
area, more traffic would be a health and safety issue for children who walk to school (which is
something to be encouraged). More traffic would discourage this practice and again, increase traffic.
This area is of considerable beauty as well as providing a haven for wildlife, especially bird-life for
which the reservoirs and Swan's Pool provide a special habitat. It is a focus for walkers and families
who are able to access a rural environment within minutes from the populated streets adjoining the
Buxton and Hurdsfield Roads and therefore the land should be considered a local amenity.
This area is one of outstanding beauty with a wide range of wildlife. It is used regularly by locals and
provides healthy recreation and education for our children.
This area is recognised by the residents of the area and the large number of visitors as an attractive
mix of dwellings and green areas that make this an attractive part of the town to live. Further
development to enclose what has, over many years, been accepted as necessarily Green Belt would
be both detrimental to this part of the town and a blight on views of the hills from many parts of the
town centre.
This area is used by many people in the area as a nature trail/ jogging route/ dog walking area and is
very busy with people enjoying the countryside. Not only would housing here impact on the local
people who visit this local beauty spot, it would also affect views of the landscape from the town
centre. I worked for an architecture firm and I know of some projects in the town centre that are
being designed to specifically preserve the views towards Hurdsfield.
This area is very close to my home and we would like it to remain in the green belt. We only moved
here in July and one of the things that attracted us to the area was the proximity of places to walk. I
do not want to see this disappear to make way for new housing. There seem to be plenty of derelict
buildings/ brown field sites that could be utilised rather than using protected areas.
Page 209
This area provides a civic amenity for large numbers of Macclesfield residents as it of a very beautiful
nature and is easily accessible to a large catchment - most of the east side of Macclesfield is within a
few minutes walk as the area is so close to the centre of town. The area is heavily walked. The road
access into this area is poor, and the impact of improving road access to support new housing would
be very disruptive to existing residents and visitors to Puss bank School, which already takes road
access to capacity at drop-off and pick-up times. Road access from Fence Avenue would also be
inappropriate - Fence Avenue becomes completely log-jammed at pick-up/drop-off times at King's.
This area is also a long way from flat (one of the factors that makes it so attractive) so drainage and
access roads are challenging. It just makes no sense to build here when there are brownfield sites
that can be redeveloped .
This area provides recreational countryside access to Hurdsfield and Buxton Road residents and is
also easily accessed by foot from Macclesfield town centre. It is also potentially the only remaining
access for walking / cycling to-wards the Peak District national park and it would be essential to
retain this.
This area should be left as a buffer zone
This area should be preserved for its natural environment rather than housing and it would only
deliver a small number of homes.
This area would be attractive to potential house owners. Could support a reasonable number of
dwellings. Handy for town and Tytherington Business Park
This beautiful greenbelt land is enjoyed by local residents and visitors alike, it is one of the main
reasons I relocated to this area. I believe that traffic management would be a potential problem,
especially around the Barracks Lane / Cottage Lane one-way system
This brings green space into the town and should not be lost.
This covers a patch of beautiful land that is a green lung for all those who live around and a haven
for wildlife. If you were designing a new town you would design it like this - housing arranged around
green open space.
This green and pleasant land (green belt) with its beauty and benefits will be lost for ever! Green
Open spaces/countryside with its landscape character of magnificent trees, streams, reservoirs are
beneficial to people and the environment (climate change)
This green belt in previous plans was an area of special county value and contains a nature
conservation priority area. What has changed? This is also a very popular walking area, less than a
mile from the town centre, giving local people access to the countryside and canal, with a wealth of
wildlife and views to the hills.
This green belt land serves a large community of people from the Hurdsfield Rd and Buxton Rd
areas. It is heavily used by walkers, families, etc, and actually provides some of the key
environmental targets outlined in Objective 6.
This is a beautiful area and should not be built upon. As well as obscuring views, this would harm a
well loved area and prevent its use for recreation by local residents
This is a beautiful area giving the existing local families easy access to quiet areas to walk, talk and be
at peace without having to drive out into the countryside. There are geese which fly in regularly to
these fields and lots of other wildlife. There are other areas in the town which are in need of
improvement and less beautiful areas which I think should be used for building before losing areas of
natural beauty which cannot be replaced.
This is a beautiful area used by families and walkers. It provides a safe way for many children to walk
to school to Puss Bank and swans pool provides a haven for wild life. I would not want to see this
area developed. Of all the green belt sites, this provides the fewest number of dwellings.
This is a beautiful green area, adjoining the well-used Macclesfield canal leisure facility.
Page 210
This is a development that would put the eastern Green Belt at risk of further inroads. I fear
increasing "creep" into the Green Belt, if this is allowed. This is an area of local amenity with its canal
and ponds. It is one of the areas where people walk and admire the views of which this area is part
and which are an irreplaceable Macclesfield asset. Please don't destroy it by allowing these green
spaces to be built upon. Please keep Green Belt status for this area. To lose it would be awful.
This is a good site as this is where a lot of employment is with AstraZeneca.
This is a green belt site that can provide the smallest number of houses so will nowhere nearly meet
the suggested demand. It is also used for recreational purposes by local people so this amenity must
not be destroyed. Perhaps the most obvious objection from a planning point of view is access. Fence
Avenue and Lime Grove are absurd access points as they will put more traffic onto an already
crowded road at school commencement and finishing times. It will also further endanger the school
children. Although there is a weight limit it is never enforced so guarantees of adequate control are
worthless. Similarly access from either Lansdowne Street or Higher Fence Road would further
congest an already dense traffic flow during rush hours.
This is a highly sought after area of the town, specifically because of the green areas, farms, canal
and local pools. It is a lovely area to live if you have young children like we do, and it would be a
shame to lose any of that landscape to housing. It would ruin the appeal of the area. It would also
put increased pressure on the local school there - Puss Bank - which is already popular with a large
catchment area. Traffic up Buxton and Hurdsfield Roads (Buxton Road in particular) is already very
heavy which causing danger to children, noise, pollution and the heavy traffic causes vibration crack
damage to properties. We really don't need increased traffic through these parts.
This is a semi-rural, peaceful area, with limited road access. It is hard to imagine a less suitable area
for a housing development especially as access to canal walks and the countryside were identified as
among the factors most valued in the town.
This is a site near the canal which is the home to geese, ducks, herons and many more forms of
wildlife it would effectively destroy a small piece of very important countryside
This is a very attractive area within the Green Belt, and an area of special County Value and contains
a nature conservation area ( which it does not mention in your literature) This is a very popular area
for walking within easy reach of the town centre, giving local people access to the countryside and
wildlife, beautiful scenery etc. This is the last finger of Green belt that stretches down from Buxton
into the town of Macclesfield nearly into the town centre. Leave it alone, plenty of other eyesores to
clean first.
This is an area of natural beauty and contributes to biodiversity of Macclesfield and the wellbeing of
its residents. I strong disagree that it should be used for housing.
This is an area of outstanding natural beauty accessible and as a amenity for residents on that side of
town
This is an area used for recreation, especially along the canal, by many local residents and is an area
of considerable charm and attractiveness. It will be a tragedy for the town if it is lost. Also
contradicts the environmental plan of improving and enhancing the Macclesfield Canal
This is an important green lung, containing many attractive natural features, which brings the
countryside and farming to the edge of the town centre, when combined with Victoria Park. The site
does not bring the potential for improved accessibility that sites to the south and west of the town
bring.
Page 211
This is both Green Belt AND an Area of Special County Value (ASCV) in previous plans, containing
nature conservation areas. It is, furthermore, one of the most beautiful areas in the locality with an
abundance of wildlife, scenery and local walks, enjoyed by all age groups.
This is Green belt and should remain so.
This is Green Belt land and I feel that Macclesfield has a lot of brown sites so while spoil special
beauty
This is Green Belt land, and should not be considered for any development.
This is Green Belt land. It is lovely. The road is not able to cope with extra cars. Bad bend would be a
danger, access to Buxton Rd extremely dangerous. The land is farmed, cows, sheep, grass for hay
silage. There are several lovely pools, ponds, reservoir, much wildlife, ducks, newts ( protected)
which should be protected.
This is green belt. The canal walk is used by a great many Macclesfield people as green lung. It is a
site of special scientific interest.
This is Greenbelt - the area goes against the ideas set out in the Draft Town Planning Booklet that we
need to 'value the attractiveness, accessibility and integrity of surrounding countryside including
Greenbelt. This is a conservation area for nature and it would be disgraceful to destroy it to make
way for yet another hideous toy town development! There are other sites that would be suitable
and would not spoil this beautiful countryside. Te traffic on Fence Avenue is already reaching
dangerous levels. We are constantly complaining to the local council and police regarding the
volume of traffic, speed, weight limit on the road that isn't being enforced. The Kings school, the
industrial estate, including the new building merchants all adds to the traffic. We are conscious of
keeping our house and surrounding gardens in keeping with the historic and nature conservation
which the council are so keen to promote. This would mean the whole idea of conservation is a joke!
This is in the current greenbelt and to the best of my knowledge a nature conservation area. Section
1.6 of the plan talks about protecting nature conservation areas and safeguarding the countryside
Section 1.9 states that "factors most valued in Macclesfield" are access to areas for walking (walking
the dog..... . Higher Fence Road, the footpath beyond the end of Whitney Croft and the tracks off the
end of Ecton Avenue see a continuous stream of walkers who enjoy the countryside within walking
distance of the town. This would be lost if it were a walk around the edge of a housing estate - you
may as well walk anywhere else in town. Section 2.1 considers flood risk. The existing properties
along the north side of Whitney Croft have been catastrophically flooded twice in the last 12 years.
In order for any development in this area to be safe (failure of the reservoir bank washed away the
original dye works!) the reservoirs would have to be drained - destroying further natural beauty in
the area and a popular location for local fishing clubs. Consider building in this area against the 7
stated objectives of the plan 1 - Economic Prosperity; Neutral, building houses won't bring prosperity
2 - Town Centre; Negative impact, to regenerate the town a critical mass needs to be built in the
town 3 - Housing; Partially supports objective 3 but not in the town centre 4 - Access and Transport;
Unknown, without details of possibilities 5 - Community Facilities; Negative, destruction of popular
walking area and fishing reservoirs 6 - Environment: Negative, destruction of nature conservation
area and reservoirs important for wildlife 7- Deliverability; Can't comment, unintelligible
This is one of the few green belt areas of outstanding natural beauty close to the town centre and I
thought it was designated a conservation area at some stage. The traffic problems are already
horrendous when the school is in session and now we have lorries using the road as a short cut
despite the tonnage limit on Fence Avenue. Any more traffic is unthinkable. There must surely be
brown field sites available.
This is part of the green belt. Ten years ago, in the previous plan, Cheshire CC considered it a valued
asset and it still is. It provides a "green triangle" looking from the town hall towards the peak district
national park. It is a resource of green fields, footpaths and ponds for wildlife, birds and residents.
This is perhaps the closes approach of the countryside to the town centre and it should be preserved
as such. The area includes the parkland of Lark Hall and Swan's Pool. There are several walks around
Page 212
the canal towpath, and Higher Fence reservoirs.
This is quite a small area and is a haven of green reaching into the town. It might be more valuable
to the town as a whole were it to be developed as a country park
This is some of the most beautiful countryside in the area. There is difficulty in access to the area
and it should remain as countryside. DO NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT
This is the only green lung in Macclesfield. It backs on to steep slopes with NT land to the east side. It
is littered with old mine shafts/ workings which I assume would preclude building development (Two
houses built over old workings collapsed and had to be demolished.
This is too beautiful for housing: It is great for walking, jogging, cycling - a quick escape into the
countryside for many.
This is towards the Peak District and should be avoided.
This land forms part of an important green corridor between the town and the Peak District. Housing
development would seriously detract from the towns visible landscape setting
This land is honey combed with old mine workings and could be expensive to make safe
This lovely open are should not be developed. It is a peaceful enjoyable area in an otherwise built up
district of the town. This must be preserved under the heading of community facility.
This particular area has been a very much loved location for a very large proportion of the people of
Macclesfield for many years. Many generations of families have enjoyed this area of countryside
each day and evening of the week, in all seasons and continue to do so to this date. It would be
criminal to deny children and families the opportunity to enjoy this much loved area of Macclesfield.
This is one area that children are safe to play in as there is always somebody around walking their
dogs, feeding the much loved ducks and swans, or just simply walking to enjoy the peace and
tranquillity. The increase in traffic will also be an issue for residents in this area who already suffer
from heavy traffic noise. I have lived in this area all my life and myself and my neighbours will
protest strongly this 'proposed site'. I was informed of this proposal by a neighbour who had
information hand posted to her. I would like to be informed as to why myself and many other
neighbours have not been given this information at your earliest convenience.
This particular area is an easy link from the town centre into the Peak District. At weekends it not
uncommon to see small groups making their way from the Railway stations up Buxton road and
along the canal, while through out the week the area is appreciated by many locals out for a short
walk.
This should be kept green as it is near canal.
This site has the merit of proximity to the town centre, and consequent reduced carbon footprint
This site is relatively sustainable in terms of its general location having regard to the existing layout
of the town to the east of the town centre and is fairly close to many facilities required to
complement residential development. The site is, however, only suitable should housing
requirements not be capable of being accommodated within an urban extension encompassing Sites
H and I. If the land is required it would provide an eastern option for residential development.
This site provides a green space into the town. However it seems unreasonable to have all of the
housing development on the western side of the town. Therefore if there is a demand for housing on
this side of town then this site should be considered for housing.
This tiny bit of green space provides us all with a bit of calm and relaxation. We all walk to it with our
children and never fail to admire this local beauty spot. It gives so many of us...so much....and its loss
would create demise in our wellbeing.
This tongue of land extending from almost town centre to Peak Dist park is visually important, visible
from town centre making a major contribution to linking town with countryside. It links with Victoria
Page 213
Park that is enjoying a resurgence in use following the award winning sustainable redevelopment of
the '60's deck flats. Town's proximity to peak district national park is an asset and this site provides
an important link between Bollin Valley, Macc Canal. Old industrial watercourses bring wildlife such
as kingfishers close to town centre Boundaries of this area are well defined physically and unlikely to
change
This was designated as part of green belt 10 years ago in the plan by Cheshire CC. It is considered to
be the "lungs" of Macclesfield and forms a green space leading into the Peak District. It is a valuable
resource for residents and is rich with wildlife.
This would be a big mistake. It is a small area which already has a lot of housing, and is well
established with a good balance. Any changes would completely ruin a beautiful highly sought-after
part of Macclesfield. It is a much loved recreational area and is outstanding. It would put a lot of
pressure on Puss Bank School. The increase in traffic would be dangerous. It is bad enough as it is
without adding to the problems. Barracks Lane/Cottage Lane is a one way system which would
struggle with any more daily traffic from increased housing, especially dangerous near the school.
We have beautiful Swans Pool too which is a quiet haven for wild life. Any more traffic in that area
would completely ruin it.
This would be a disaster. It is Green Belt, and an area of outstanding natural beauty. This area must
be preserved for future generations.
This would destroy and area which helps to separate existing developments established over many
years. Why would this be a preferred site on such a basis?
This would encroach on the green oasis separating the 2 roads into Macclesfield + would increase
the traffic on 2 already busy roads.
This would not be overdevelopment of the area
Ties in well with existing industry and housing.
To even consider building 240 houses on this beautiful wedge of Green Belt would be a tragedy. An
area loved by all who look over it and or walk along the unmade Higher Fence Road and the canal.
Traffic issues
Transport links in this area are not sufficient for this level of increased housing
Unacceptable impact on landscape, this area’s openness brings the hills close in to the urban centre
;development here rejected on appeal in 1970s for landscape reasons
Unsuitable. This is a genuine 'green' amenity, overlooked from many angles. The walk by the pools
above Whitney Croft is well-used and precious.
Vandalism
Very limited access and high visibility from the rest of the town means great visual impact on the
environment
We do not want and have never wanted that land to change in any way at all from its greenbelt
status because of the wildlife, environment, views, walking facilities which we, our children and
grandchildren have on-going pleasure from. The agricultural value, wildlife value, human outdoor
benefits will be gone forever.
We do not want and have never wanted that land to change in any way at all from its greenbelt
status because of the wildlife, environment, views, walking facilities which we, our children and
grandchildren have on-going pleasure from. The agricultural value, wildlife value, human outdoor
benefits will be gone forever.
We strongly disagree with proposal E - Land between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton Road. This Green
Belt land is rich with biodiversity being a haven for birds (Herons frequent the pools on this site),
plants, including mature trees, and provides a much needed Green Space on this side of
Macclesfield. Other areas of Macclesfield are more amenable to development e.g. Tytherington
Estate (where provision has been made to build additional housing - for example parts of access
Page 214
roads are in place ready for the next phase of development). I strongly urge the planning committee
to preserve Green Belt land and give alternatives the highest priority for development.
We strongly object to any proposed development to build housing or any other buildings on the land
from Fence Avenue to Lark Hall. This is Green Belt land and should remain so. It is an area within a
town boundary of great beauty There are so few of them left that we cannot afford to let these
green spaces be lost for the commercial gain of local building companies. We have lived in this area
for over 35 years and don't want the character of the countryside to be changed. People are
attracted to this side of Macclesfield because of the Green Belt. We thought that the Government
want to encourage people to be fit and active. This area provides an opportunity for walking,
running etc in a safe way. It also provides people and children with access to wild life on the ponds
and farm animals in the fields and wild flowers and a variety of tree species to track the seasons - all
part of nature and learning about our natural environment. If the road from Higher Fence Avenue
was opened across the area it would become a rat run and cause issues of safety. Barracks and
Cottage Lane could not support any more traffic than they do at the moment.
Whilst The Coal Authority has no preference on the choice of any spatial option, it should be noted
that the potential housing option E may lie on the surface coal resource and in an area of mining
legacy. The actual potential site boundaries are not shown at this stage and therefore it may not
extend far enough to the east to fall within the coal resource and area of mining legacy. If the spatial
option E were to extend into these areas then these factors would need to be considered in the site
allocation process.
Why build on a beautiful area-full of wildlife
Would have a major negative impact on the environmental objectives within the strategy vision. This
area contains one of the few open country side areas surrounding the canal in Macclesfield. The
canal from bridge 35 to Buxton Road provides wonderful views over Macclesfield town. Any
development between Higher Fence Road and Fence Road would have a severe impact on this
panorama. The area also contains a dense network of footpaths. The stream running down the field
behind Sandringham Road is prone to flooding and the land is water logged. Road access to this area
is poor. Barracks Lane and Higher Fence Road are very narrow and would not support high traffic
levels. Hurdsfield is already narrow and congested. A link road between Hurdsfield Road and Buxton
Road would be used as a rat run.
Would massively detract from the current visuals from the town centre towards the Peak District, a
really important part of keeping the overall feel of Macclesfield town centre
Page 215
Q3. Site F: Land east of London Road (Housing and/or Employment)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site E in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site F
? Not sure about this. A possibility only but are there enough facilities locally for so many houses?
Also does seem to becoming a ribbon Lyme Green, Sutton, Langley
1st class agricultural land. In Parish Plan questionnaire covering Sutton, Langley, and Lyme Green
97% of people wanted to keep this area as green belt. Current urban area clearly defined by
prominent features. Should not be developed simply because a lower cost here to developer would
increase council take through S106 payment. Sutton loses its identity.
A small area of this land should be devoted to housing only
Adjacent to football ground and business/retail park so little adverse consequence of development again not ideal to build on greenbelt however.
Already a 'mixed' economy and therefore no fundamental change to the nature of the area. Looks to
be more tied in to the Transport strategy and therefore much less upheaval of established transport
networks.
Any development would have to be minimal to avoid scarring the landscape
Area needs improvement, looks shabby driving in from Leek
As long as good access is built onto the Silk Road and the new bypass, this is a good area.
Aside from my comments about the local ponds in E above, my comments re E apply to F also. I am
dismayed that you are proposing to remove Green Belt status from this area, which is such a visible
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site F
Page 216
site where building will impact on the visible landscape to the east of the town into the Peak District.
The proposal that you should build 1200 houses here is depressing and will be harmful to the
environs of Macclesfield, let alone the surrounding landscape.
Best location for development by far - already halfway there!
Both Sites F & G merge Macclesfield with Sutton & Langley. Both Sites should be protected from
development, and remain in the Green Belt. The current boundary of the Green Belt is well defined
by prominent features Macclesfield, London Road, and the main line railway, and should not be
changed. Both Sites are designated as Areas of Special County Value for landscape, because they
form an important role as part of the Peak Fringe. The view from London Road eastwards towards
the National Park clearly illustrates this. The function of this area is clearly set out in the Macclesfield
Local Plan Policies NE1 & 2 (Para 3.5). Site F is allocated in the Macclesfield Local Plan for
recreational purposes, and part of it had planning permission for a relocated Macclesfield Cricket
Ground and hockey facilities. The use of this area for such activities fits in with the objectives of the
Green Belt, and provides a green buffer between Macclesfield and Sutton. The road infrastructure is
inadequate to serve the development of either site for housing or employment. Both Gaw End Lane
and Bullocks Lanes are country lanes , and London Road already suffers from problems related to the
Canal bridge, and turning traffic at the many access points along it.
Both these sites (F, G) if developed would mean the loss of beautiful countryside and more
importantly would merge into Macclesfield which is against Government guidelines that state
areas/towns/should keep their individuality and identity. It is illogical and unethical to use any green
belt land when other sites are available
Byron’s Wood to be retained with open space between any development and the wood.
Employment use along London Road and the railway line only.
Can you guarantee business will want to come to Macclesfield and will they definately create more
jobs?
Clear message that Site F and Site G should remain in the Green Belt: 97% of respondents to the
Sutton Parish Plan support maintaining the Green Belt gap between Sutton/Lyme Green and
Macclesfield. There is strong commitment to the natural environment and outdoor activities. Sites F
and G are valuable as Areas of Special County Value for landscape and their use for out door
recreation therefore should be protected. There is significant concern in relation to Roads and
Transport how country lanes in the Parish were used by car drivers, issue of speeding on lanes and
London Road. Development of either Sites F or G would exacerbate these existing highway
problems.
Could deliver a good number of the new houses required. Although currently greenbelt land, is
bounded by the canal and railway thus giving a solid distinction between built on and greenbelt area.
Close to employment opportunities thus decreasing reliance on cars for commuting and thus causing
traffic issues.
Could, and should, be used for either or both. This area urgently need development. Either side of
the A523 into Macclesfield from the football ground up to its "junction" with the A536 is absolutely
dire. This route into the town gives everybody, especially visitors, a dreadful impression of
Macclesfield.
Definitely 1,200 dwellings would be good in an area that already has Lyme Green Business Park
which could be expanded further
Despite disagreeing there is potential for a light housing development here with a major emphasis
on foot / cycling access to the canal & Sutton beyond and a possible riverside path along the Bollin.
What is special is the country view from the London road between Lyme Green and the football
stadium, and it would be sad to lose this.
Develop 1200 homes for distinct community as achieved in Tytherington
Page 217
Development for housing would change the character and quality of this green belt area. Allocated
for recreational use and forms part of foothills of the Peak Park. Roads in this area are country lanes.
Development of the site leading to gridlock
Development of this area and or Area E would destroy the break between Macclesfield and Sutton
flying in the face of national planning policy. The council should be seeking to improve some of the
dereliction within the town’s boundaries before destroying the surrounding countryside which it
claims is one of the unique features of the town
Development would breach the current Green Belt gap between Macclesfield and the Parish of
Sutton. It is currently allocated for recreational facilities and this should continue. Such a large
development would also impact on traffic congestion for residents of Sutton.
Do not agree to the relocation of the Football ground but would like to encourage the use for retail
and employment possibilities. The provision of Housing in this area would not be suitable if the
employment facilities are going to be restricted as a result. E.g. the Henshaw situation where the
Properties are subjected to disruption as a result of a business operation. This would need careful
management but it would be far easier to just define the area Commercial and retail only. Maybe
linking to The Sports facility referred to earlier
Employment should be a priority in this area
Established housing and employment area. Situtated near access road. Unsure about effect on green
belt site
Excellent location with good links and potential for nearby community facilities
For housing
Good agricultural land should not be lost. the langley/Sutton area has become a major leisure area
for the people of Macclesfield and this amenity, landscape open space , heritage buildings should be
preserved
Good area for a reasonable sized mixed use development, close to existing and proposed link roads.
Byrons Wood to be preserved.
Green Belt
Green Belt again. An area of special landscape value more suited to playing fields than development
Green Belt and ASCV in previous plans
Green belt and PP fringe area of Special County value need to be kept
green belt land
Green belt land - need to keep Macclesfield and Lyme Green/Sutton separate
Green Belt land and an area of Special Landscape Value. More suited to playing fields rather than
development. There is a fundamental and integral duty to future generations in the preservation of
this important Green Belt area of Macclesfield.
Green belt land which separates Sutton and Lyme green from Macc. Forms part of the foothills
leading to the peak district national park. Macc local plan designates this site as part of the peak park
fringe area of special county value for landscape. The policy in this area is to protect this land from
development which would adversely affect its character and appearance. The road system in this
Page 218
area would not support further traffic.
Green belt land, proximity to Macclesfield canal (see objective 6 Environment : bullet point 6: To
improve and enhance the Macclesfield Canal.... - this contradicts this objective)
Green Belt near to canal. Strongly disagree
Green Belt should basically remain protected, but there would possibly be scope to extend a mixture
of housing and employment near to existing buildings(Lyme Green Business Park).
Green belt, an area of special landscape value. More suited to playing fields than development.
Green Belt, this area has special landscape value, more suited to playing fields rather than
development
Greenbelt
Had to be land for sports facilities etc
Housing.
How well are the businesses here used? Do we need more here or should we keep commercial
shops in the town centre?
However, please see my comments under section 3
I am unsure. It's in the Green Belt, but development here might not impact many neighbours. The
effect of traffic should be OK
need space.
wherever possible.
the town.
I support this development because it can offer housing and employment close together.
I think this area should remain green belt as it is sited on the way out of Macclesfield and lies to the
east which is where the countryside and outstanding views of the hills and Macclesfield forest can
be seen. Putting more building here would also create too much traffic on an already very busy road.
Page 219
and therefore extending the towns boundaries will put more pressure on an already inadequate
service.
ideal
If there really is a need to encroach on green belt then this area does seem to be the one which
could be looked at since it is the least scenic of the set of green belt sites under consideration. It also
lies within the canal boundary and wouldn't appear to be a spur of the existing town.
In favour but not to maximum scale of the proposal.
contains a Nature Conservation Priority Area (NCPA) as per NE16
contains a Nature Conservation Priority Area (NCPA) as per NE16
town?
It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have to be a strong
case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage more
people to live in the town centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2 (p10)
includes improving connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I draw your attention to
Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years awaiting the availability of
funds to repair retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has been set for the execution of
these repairs.
It would be a great pity to build to the east of the A523, other than on brown-field sites. The danger
would be that villages and semi-rural areas on the edges of Macclesfield would be merged into a
sprawling town. The sprawl of car dealerships and other unattractive commercial buildings is
currently off-set by open fields and views towards Macclesfield forest on the other (east) side of the
main road. Building on Greenfield sites to the east of the A523 would render the area just like the
unsightly commercial sprawl that is typical of so many other towns and would lose much of the
character of Macclesfield, dependent as it is on its relationship with surrounding countryside.
Its a natural growth for the towns expansion. it is flat and is on a major road
Its important green belt. It is a landscape that forms the foothills of the peak park. It is a site of
special county value.
Keep greenbelt
Keep new developments to edges of town.
Keep the green green
Leave alone.
Less obtrusive, keep below canal
like the idea of mixed housing and business
Low lying land - increased cover of land by building would increase flood risk and consequent
disruption May merit further study but landscape impact issues need careful evaluation. Macclesfield Canal
may form a defensible boundary in longer term
Maybe - but again, not enough information to show what this would look like.
Merits retailer study. Area F “ East of London Road “ possible landscape impacts given topography
and potential for coalescence with Lyme Green Area of Sutton. Set against this the canal would
represent a permanent boundary. Flood risk assessment necessary. Employment allocation would
Page 220
not be needed if allocation retained at Tytherington.
Mixed development preferred
Mixture of housing and employment the employment would be an extension to Lyme Green
Business Park. Keep employment close together and it will be successful
Narrow gap between Macclesfield and Lyme Green should be protected. These sites are already
protected fro their landscape importance, and could be used for recreational purposes e.g. playing
fields. Road system is totally inadequate here. Site adjacent to Lyme Green Settlement - largest
housing area in the Borough specially designed for disabled people. The canal forms well defined
boundary for the green belt and is a conservation area. Danes Moss Nature reserve and SSSI
extensively used for walking, cycling and bird watching. Use brownfield sites, vacant mills etc.
Consider there are plenty of brown field sites.
Natural piece of the existing jigsaw of housing in Macc, existing transport links and access to M^ via
J17
Need to maintain Green Belt between Lyme Green and Macclesfield. Recreational use would be a
preferred option.
sites
needs redevelopment
No “ Green Belt
No comments to make at this stage, until the following development data is know: ï‚§ Scale ï‚§ Type
ï‚§ Location ï‚§ Timing ï‚§ Discharge rates and location ï‚§ Water demand and connexion points
United Utilities PLC can confirm if there any water supply and/or sewerage infrastructure capacity
issues is information details is confirmed
No green field development should be considered. Traffic problems alone should be enough to stop
this, but an unwarranted attack on the green belt of Macclesfield.
NO! This is the most stupid proposal of all. A great view of the hills would be spoilt and Sutton would
become part of Macclesfield
Not in the Green Belt
Not on Green Belt
Not suitable for housing but more suitable for use as playing fields or other leisure activities.
However, the Green Belt should not be altered to allow development here, the southern entrance to
Macclesfield and a vital space, the lungs of the town and an area of Special Landscape Value. Here
the plain meets the hills and gives Macclesfield its unique character.
Not too distant from the College.
Offers large number of houses & contains Macclesfield within canal as a boundary.
On Existing Green Belt. Would spoil the countryside and views of hills
One of the better sites to develop.
Only viable if the 2 new link roads H and I are built first
Open area able to be planned effectively without impact to current residencies.
Open area suitable for development employment i.e. a cinema,
Open countryside
Our Clients site forms part of one of ten Development Options identified on Diagram 1 of the DMTS
Page 221
which may offer opportunities for housing growth and/or employment generating uses. The
identified Development Options are predominately located to the north.west and south.west of the
Macclesfield urban area. If this spatial approach is adopted, there is the very real risk of
intensification within one or two areas, as opposed to the sustainable, balanced growth of the town.
Accordingly, our Client considers that new development and Green Belt release should be equally
distributed around the town as part of a balanced spatial approach to housing and economic growth.
Our Client’s site, which extends to c. 12 hectares, forms part of Development Option F: Land East of
London Road within the DMTS, and the Council has identified that approximately 1,200 dwellings, or
high.quality business uses, or a mix of both housing and employment, could be delivered within this
Area. Our Client supports the Council’s assessment of the Area’s development potential, which it is
agreed has the potential to come forward for housing and/or employment uses during the new
Cheshire East Local Plan period. We have assessed our Client’s site, and the wider Area F, in the
context of the five purposes of Green Belt listed in paragraph 80 of the NPPF, and by doing so do not
consider that the release of our Client’s site, nor the wider Area F from the Green Belt, would have a
detrimental impact on the Green belt. Its release would not lead to urban sprawl as the Area is well
contained by fixed boundaries, notably Macclesfield Canal to the east, and London Road to the west.
The very presence of the Canal creates a defensible boundary which restricts the potential for
further growth to the east, thus ensuring that development would not encroach any further into the
Green Belt or Open Countryside in the future. The location of our Client’s land immediately adjacent
to London Road means that it would represent the first phase of development within Area F, given
that access would need to be secured from London Road through our Client’s site. Alternatively, our
Client’s site has the potential to come forward in isolation as part of a smaller land release, and the
Council’s 2011 SHLAA has recognised as much (Site Ref. 3513), with the potential to deliver at least
175 dwellings between years 6 -15 of the emerging Local Plan. It is our Client’s view that given the
extremely sustainable location of their site, its single ownership, and lack of constraints, there is no
reason why c. 360 units (assuming 30dph) could not come forward within the next 15 years, and in
doing so make a significant contribution to the Council’s housing land supply and growth strategy for
Macclesfield. We have also assessed our Client’s site in terms of the draft SA, and consider that it is
suitable, available and deliverable for development during the new Cheshire East Local Plan period.
The considerable benefits of our Client’s site, and the wider Area include the following: It occupies
a highly sustainable and strategic location to the south.east of Macclesfield, lying within 500m of
Lyme Green Business Park (a major employment destination), and within 2km of Macclesfield Town
Centre (providing access to the train station, educational institutions, and shops and services); It
benefits from excellent strategic road and public transport linkages; It has the potential to deliver a
mix of high.quality new housing to meet future needs and to support an increased local workforce;
Its strategic location lends itself to contributing towards the economic growth of the town, and in
doing so attracting new inward investment and employment opportunities; It benefits from
permanent fixed boundaries at all sides, ensuring that it is well. contained and negating any
potential further encroachment into the Green Belt in the future; There are no known physical or
environmental constraints which would preclude the site from development; It would contribute
towards a balanced spatial distribution of new housing and economic growth as a sustainable
extension to the southeast of the town; It would not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt, and
would not cause any coalescence issues; and It would make a valuable contribution towards
achieving the vision for Macclesfield. Our Client supports the Council’s consideration of its site as a
potential Development Option as part of Area F and equally our Client’s site is suitable, available and
deliverable in isolation without having a detrimental impact on the Green Belt.
Page 222
the town centre.
Pity to spoil the country side around the canal unless the developments showed spectacular
architecture
Possible for smaller development
Possibly a realistic site for upgrade and development if the western bypass is built.
Potentially detracts from canal amenity.
Preserve green belt
Prime countryside on the approach to the Peak District. An attractive asset of the town that should
be left untouched. Taking this land would also join up the villages of Lyme green and Sutton with
Macclesfield, contrary to one of the basic objectives of the Green belt to prevent urban sprawl
Priority should be given to re-developing/re-furbishing the existing sites/buildings to the north of
Site F which currently are a real eye-sore.
Providing there is plenty of green space left, and it is not low density housing for the well off. In
other words I would not like to see the whole are developed. The ugly mess the other side of the
London Road at Lyme Green should serve as an example of how not to do it.
Redevelop the brown field sites like the empty mills
See above. This is a beautiful location that should be maintained for the people of Macclesfield to
enjoy.
See preliminary comments above for E
seems ripe for development
Seems suitable area for development, near to present Lyme Green area.
permitted Development of any greenbelt areas around the town would cause an unnecessary
centre so is likely to cause a dormitory estate unless the facilities at Heald Green are improved
widely. If additional employment is to be provided sufficient parking is required as, for example, the
road around Heald Green become choked during office hours For mixed development good
separation between housing and employment (Including adequate parking) must be provided, as
must suitable leisure facilities.
Sites F (London Road) & G (Gaw End Lane) I do not accept should be developed. The reasons being:
They form a well defined Green Belt function of preventing towns and villages from merging, and
therefore losing their identity. The Green Belt has clearly defined boundaries in this part of
Macclesfield, following London Road south to the canal, and the canal west to the railway line. The
sites are both Areas of Special County Value for landscape, forming part of the Peak Fringe. The
landscape character of these areas has not changed over the past 20 years, and therefore this
landscape protection should remain. Both sites could form a positive role in being used for outdoor
recreation.
Surely this is the prime site for development if you HAVE to use greenbelt - near to the main route
through town and underdeveloped in terms of population on this side of the town. Plus there are
some brownfield sites that could be used here.
Page 223
Sutton Parish Council, resolved to make strong formal representations against the inclusion of land
identified as F (land east of London Road) and G (land at Gaw End Lane). Both sites are within the
existing defined Green Belt which the Parish Council, and representatives of the Stakeholder Panel,
seriously consider should remain as an essential feature to protect and enhance the individual
identity of the Sutton Parish rural communities. Development, of any kind, on the above sites would
seriously undermine the viability of retaining this important rural feature of the Sutton Parish
communities. It is extremely important to note that both sites (F & G) are classified as Areas of
Special County Value and the loss of such landscape by Housing and/or Employment development,
on the Peak National Park fringe, would impose a serious detrimental impact upon the amenity
value of the area. Again the Parish Council consider that it is essential to retain and respect the value
of this designated area of Special County Value. Both sites (F & G) are bounded by the Macclesfield
Canal which, if developed, would have a serious detrimental impact upon the Canal Conservation
Area. The Parish Council fully supports the conservation protection and is strongly opposed to the
development of sites F & G for Housing and/or Employment purposes. The Parish Council are not
convinced that the potential use of Brown Field Sites within Macclesfield have been fully explored
and are of the opinion that further appraisal of such sites, along with the town centre
redevelopment opportunity, could significantly reduce the need to unnecessarily exploit the use of
Areas of Special County Value within the Green Belt. During the Stakeholder Panel considerations
there was a clear indication that sites F & G were ˜Not Favoured for development and that the
Green Belt and Area of Special County Value designations should be respected. This is a view
strongly supported by Sutton Parish Council and the local community.
The area has been identified within the SA as being landscape consisting of higher farms and woods
characterised by a mix of field size areas of woodland and ponds and small mossland areas. This is
likely to support a range of important habitats.
an attractive waterway setting, for example the removal of litter from the water and maintenance of
the towpath.
can be seen.
The land east of London Road is in the Green Belt and if this area of green belt is taken it will not be
recovered. The land east of London Road provides continued and important Green Belt function,
including keeping the distinctive areas of Sutton & Lyme Green separate from the town of
Macclesfield and forms a well defined boundary for the Green Belt. The site is particularly attractive
Page 224
as it establishes part of the foothills leading up to the Peak District National Park. This important
landscape function is recognised in the Macclesfield Local Plan which designates this site as part of
the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special County Value for landscape. The policy in this area is to
conserve and enhance the quality of the landscape, and protect it from development which would
adversely affect its character and appearance. It is also allocated in the Macclesfield Local Plan for
recreational uses which would be compatible with its Green Belt function. Such a use would also
provide a long term protection of this important Green Belt gap between Macclesfield and Lyme
Green and Sutton. Developing this site would erode the character & identity of both Sutton and
Lyme Green. The road system, within Sutton Parish, consists of country lanes which are already
inadequate to accommodate the existing traffic; it would therefore be inappropriate to release
further traffic on the surrounding roads by developing this site.
the loss of green belt is a concern but as development with the road proposal into town would be
one of the more acceptable losses of green belt
The merit of housing adjacent to areas of employment makes inescapable sense.
The proposal for such a large area of concentrated housing will have a detrimental effect on the
green belt bordering the southern edge of the town. The infrastructure is also negligible in this area
for the estimated number of houses. Consideration would also need to be given to the impact of
traffic generated in the area.
The views over to Sutton from this area are amongst the most beautiful and would be destroyed. DO
NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT
There is little in the way of shops and employment at this end of town. A mixture of housing and
ideally some retail would be beneficial to the area.
There is no actual commitment to providing 1200 dwellings as it stands again it is businesses and no
discussion or what type
There is some amount of 'sprawl' at this end of the town
There needs to be the right balance of land use for employment and housing use
These locations are realistic if consideration is given to a railway station in this area. Has this been
considered?
These sites are designated as Priority Habitat Floodplain Grazing marsh. Site F is also a NCPA in the
Local Plan. Again, not appropriate for development from a nature conservation point of view.
This area has great views out up towards Sutton and Langley beyond the valley and again
Employment land holdings in our area are high so these should be better utilised first. Also again
developing employment opportunities further from the town core will only serve to diminish its
vibrancy.
further development.
This area needs a face lift, so developing it would do us all a favour and spare us our green belt.
This area of Green Belt land provides a green boundary between the villages of Sutton and Lyme
Green and, of course, Macclesfield. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty affording views across
to the foothills of the Peak National Park. To develop this area for housing would, in my opinion, be
an act of Local Government vandalism!
This area would deliver a large number of houses and could help in revive and support businesses in
this area of the town.
This complements the Lyme Green development and is ideally positioned. Could the whole area
within the canal be developed?
This green belt should be preserved.
Page 225
This is a large site well suited to achieve a large proportion of the housing target. There are already
houses surrounding this site as well as retail opportunities. Transport links to this site are good.
This is a little out of town and would not cause the same congestion and dangerous roads as would
by putting it on over stretched roads as it is.
This is a sound site. It is close to the town, is actually in an area that has already been developed on.
Is opposite the football club, retail sites and a large housing estate. Whilst to the rear is further
housing. This site would avoid urban crawl and could deliver the majority of the housing that the
town requires. Transport is also currently available in this area. Locality to town and Lyme Green will
provide a boost to these retail centres.
This is the break between Lyme Green, Sutton and Macclesfield. It includes the canal which is a
popular area for fishing, boating, cycling and walking. Access to those sites would be unsatisfactory.
Roads are not adequate.
This land is Green Belt, an area of Special Landscape Value and more suited to Playing fields rather
than development.
This land is to the east of Lyme Green Retail Park, if I was in the market for a new house I would not
be attracted by the prospect of living adjacent to an area dominated by Car Dealerships and
Business/Retail Units. Please try to create defined areas of either housing or commercial.
This should encourage the employment the town needs and provide affordable houses close by to
reduce travel costs and carbon emissions. Moreover, access onto the London road is easier than for
other sites
This site could lend itself to further housing providing facilities such as shops and school places are
also put in to place. Avoidance where possible of interference with the green belt should be made.
This site is in the Green Belt and keeps Sutton & Lyme Green separate from Macclesfield. The site is
particularly attractive as it forms part of the foothills which lead up to the Peak District National Park
and is recognised in the Macclesfield Local Plan which designates this site as part of the Peak Park
Fringe Area of Special County Value for landscape. It is also allocated in the Macclesfield Local Plan
for recreational uses which would be compatible with its Green Belt function. Developing this site
would erode the character & identity of Sutton and Lyme Green.
This site is in the Green Belt and performs an important Green Belt function, keeping the
settlements of Sutton & Lyme Green separate from the town of Macclesfield. London Road forms a
well defined boundary for the Green Belt. The site is particularly attractive as it forms part of the
foothills which lead up to the Peak District National Park. This important landscape function is
recognised in the Macclesfield Local Plan which designates this site as part of the Peak Park Fringe
Area of Special County Value for landscape. The policy in this area is to conserve and enhance the
quality of the landscape, and protect it from development which would adversely affect its character
and appearance. It is also allocated in the Macclesfield Local Plan for recreational uses which would
be compatible with its Green Belt function. Such a use would also provide a long term protection of
this important Green Belt gap between Macclesfield and Lyme Green and Sutton. Developing this
site would erode the character & identity of both these settlements. The road system within Sutton
Page 226
Parish consists of country lanes, which are already inadequate to accommodate the traffic which
uses them; it would therefore be inappropriate to release further traffic on the surrounding roads by
developing this site.
This site is in the Green Belt and provides a distinct boundary between Sutton and Lyme Green and
Macclesfield. It is an attractive site that forms part of the foothills leading to the Peak National Park.
Any development would adversely effect the attractive nature of the site. It is also part of the
Macclesfield Local Plan as an area for recreation and should be kept as Green Belt. It provides a gap
between Macclesfield and Lyme Green and prevents erosion to its character and identity. The
current road system is also totally unsuitable for any large increase in traffic caused by substantial
development..
This site is the Green Belt and performs an important Green Belt function, keeping the settlements
of Sutton and Lyme Green separate from the town of Macclesfield. London Rd forms a well defined
boundary for the Green Belt. The site is particularly attractive as it forms part of the foothills which
lead up to the Peak District National Park. This important landscape function is recognised in the
Macclesfield Local Plan which designates this site as part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special
County Value for landscape. The policy in this area is to conserve and enhance the quality of the
landscape, and protect it from development which would adversely affect its character and
appearance. It is also allocated in the Macclesfield Local Plan for recreational uses which would be
compatible with its Green Belt function. Such a use would also provide a long term protection of this
important Green Belt gap between Macclesfield and Lyme Green and Sutton. Developing this site
would erode the character and identity of both these settlements. The road system within Sutton
Page 227
This site provides a striking setting for the entrance into Macclesfield from the south. It should
ideally be retained as open green land, though it could be considered as a site for the Rugby Club if
the Rugby and Football Clubs are unwilling to share the new stadium in the SMDA.
This site would provide a lot of houses in an area that is already residential
This was also previously a Special County Value area.
This would be a good place to build as long as it was limited by the canal (to retain Sutton's village
status). It would balance the development on the other side of the road and benefit from reasonable
road access. Housing would be better suited to this area.
This would be an extension of an existing built up area and would not be too detrimental as long as it
does not encroach the moss fields
This would be an extension of the housing already in this area and has the potential to provide a
large number of homes
This would be an incursion into good quality land that forms an important open aspect at the
southern approaches to the town. Development here would start to encroach on the Lyme Green
Village area and also the Macclesfield Canal Conservation Area, the setting of which would be
adversely affected.
This would be OK, if it did not stretch too far, i.e. not as far as the canal. 1200 dwellings would be far
too many!
This would detract from the current vista as one approaches the town.
This would join Sutton to Macclesfield and destroy the village character.
This would not only destroy the green belt gap between the Town and Lyme Green and Sutton which
is vital to preserve their individual identity but also more of the views from the canal path walks
which are a great amenity. As you approach the Town from the south, the view to the east from
London Road to the hills is very attractive and would be ruined as would the aspect to the west from
users of the canal. In addition, access on the easterly edge of the site is far too restricted to absorb
any more traffic..
This would seem to have the least impact on existing residents. However, the size of the
development is too large. We don't want to be a town made up of several large estates.
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual amenity - there are protected species such as
Tourist attraction of canal area needs to be preserved. Also visual impact of rural landscape
Traffic flows the same as Sutton (into town) onto Bullocks Lane or London Road would be an unsafe
and poor access. Green Belt
Vandalism
Very suitable for housing. Building here would not be harming or inconveniencing anybody, and the
land is not attractive and not really overlooked. (The few houses on Old Leek Road are a scandalous
example of ribbon building and deserve no sympathy.)
Views to Tegg's Nose from London road soften the approach to the town centre after the uninspiring
greenbelt intrusion of 1930's Lyme Green
We have plenty of empty business premises. Fill these first. Also empty shops in town centres.
Wot no Prestbury? What a stitch up. We don't want to be joined to the town as we have our own
identity. This idea is appalling. 1) Sutton, Lyme Green Langley have had a considerable amount of
rural development (including social housing) already within their parishes, and for us to bear the
brunt of further rural destruction would be unreasonable. 2) Development of area 'F' would
essentially destroy not only countryside, but the character of the area. We are a rural area (as you
are happy to tell us when decimating our bus services or hiking the price of a ticket to Macclesfield
to unreasonable levels £2.40 one-way to the town is obscene) and this development would mean we
Page 228
would cease to be rural, but another area of the town. We need to maintain the diversity of the
town and surrounding villages and hamlets in order to maintain our own character as an area. This is
vital. We do not need to loose any more farmland. 3) I don't know how many of the people involved
in this process (or councillors or MP's) take the bus but I urge you to hop on the bus from
Macclesfield to Sutton (14) and after passing the football ground look over to your left and see the
view up to the hills. This view of a village near the town, tucked in the lee of the pennines is the view
that many people entering or leaving the town see, and to block it with houses would be obscene;
something of the makeup of Macclesfield and Sutton is encompassed in that view. 4) Like many of
the proposals, this is green belt land. Once built upon, it will be destroyed forever and this is a
depressing thought. We have to maintain our local environment and although it seems to be the
current trend to ignore environmental concerns over economic this is a short-sighted, short-term
and ultimately ignorant policy. We need to raise our children with respect for our biodiversity, our
local surroundings and our mental and physical health, all of which are reliant on keeping our green
spaces. I plead with you to find a more imaginative and environmentally solution to local
development than destroying the green belt. One more, I am begging you to reconsider.
Would destroy rural aspect of the south entry and the view up the langley valley
Page 229
Q3. Site G: Land at Gaw Lane End (Housing and/or Employment)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site G in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site G
? Probably not - high land - so very prominent loss of green belt on an access road into town
A brownfield site, but in the Green Belt and should be protected from over-development. The
Council has already disgraced itself by trying to build a waste facility here.
A strong contender for development, as there is already a well developed site there.
Again could provide a large number of the houses required and would be close to employment
opportunities. Local infrastructure more likely to be able to support new population.
Again this area needs a face lift . It makes more sence to develope round down areas of Macc. Than
spoil Green belt that doe not need fixing.
Again would join the Town to Lyme Green and therefore close the gap the green belt is meant to
uphold which would again ruin further the aspect from the canal which is a major tourist draw. Site
access is poor and particularly dangerous at the canal bridge on London Road
Again, OK if a fairly small development was planned.
Agree with mixed development proposal.
Already a 'mixed' economy
Although green belt may be an exception as adjacent to existing employment area
release as a number of ˜Development Options perform most of the purposes of Green Belt “
particularly true of A,G, H and I. A large number of the options are also questionable in terms of their
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site G
Page 230
deliverability, particularly where there is a need for significant new infrastructure to support
development as well as the issue of existing occupancy “ particularly B and I (the latter also
constrained by an SBI on site.
Another nice area of country side that should be left alone.
Area G “ land at Gaw End Lane “ the land fulfils a Green Belt function of preventing coalescence with
Lyme Green and urban containment. The land is prominent being elevated above the canal and the
Lyme Green Business Park. Previous proposals resisted over many years on grounds of landscape
impact and urban sprawl.
Area near to the canal is also an area for wildlife and public to enjoy the countryside
As above
as above
As above
As above, there is danger of urban sprawl, though I don't feel as strongly opposed to this, as it is to
the west of the A523 and would have less immediate visual impact than development on the other
side of the A523.
As for A. Plus if this were allowed, it would be an urban sprawl 'spur' out of the existing town
boundary.
As for Site F, development in this areas of Green Belt would breach the current gap. Site G could be
used for recreational facilities such as a marina. The site abuts the Danes Moss Site of Special
Scientific Interest.
As in the previous Site G this is Green Belt land providing a green boundary between Macclesfield
and Lyme Green.I believe that this development would have disastrous consequences for the
Macclesfield Canal and the Danes Moss SSSI. Due to the narrow roads here with inadequate
junctions, I could forsee several road traffic accidents.
As Site F above but it will encroach on farming land.
Attractive countryside, poor access; green belt
Both Sites F & G merge Macclesfield with Sutton & Langley. Both Sites should be protected from
development, and remain in the Green Belt. The current boundary of the Green Belt is well defined
by prominent features Macclesfield, London Road, and the main line railway, and should not be
changed. Both Sites are designated as Areas of Special County Value for landscape, because they
form an important role as part of the Peak Fringe. The view from London Road eastwards towards
the National Park clearly illustrates this. The function of this area is clearly set out in the Macclesfield
Local Plan Policies NE1 & 2 (para 3.5). Site G could similarly be used for recreational purposes,
possibly associated with the canal e.g. marina. The road infrastructure is inadequate to serve the
development of either site for housing or employment. Both Gaw End Lane and Bullocks Lanes are
country lanes , and London Road already suffers from problems related to the Canal bridge, and
turning traffic at the many access points along it. Site G is part owned by Cheshire East Council and
that could have influenced this site being allocated. Site G also includes the Macclesfield Canal
Conservation Area, and abuts the Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Both these sites (F,G) if developed would mean the loss of beautiful countryside and more
importantly would œmerge into Macclesfield which is against Government guidelines that state
areas/towns/should keep their individuality and identity. It is illogical and unethical to use any green
belt land when other sites are available
Businesses could be located in Barracks Lane and other derelict and vacant sites
But only if the Area H is developed first
Can you guarantee buisness will want to come to Macclesfield and will they definately create more
jobs?
Clear message that Site F and Site G should remain in the Green Belt: 97% of respondents to the
Page 231
Sutton Parish Plan support maintaining the Green Belt gap between Sutton/Lyme Green and
Macclesfield. There is strong commitment to the natural environment and outdoor activities. Sites F
and G are valuable as Areas of Special County Value for landscape and their use for out door
recreation therefore should be protected. There is significant concern in relation to Roads and
Transport how country lanes in the Parish were used by car drivers “ issue of speeding on lanes and
London Road. Development of either Sites F or G would exacerbate these existing highway
problems.
Close to the Railway, this area is better as employment rather than residential.
Commercial only
Commercial use already exists there
Concern would be starting to spread town southwards.
Construction of new road linking A537 to A523 must proceed development of G, H and I.
Current urban area clearly defined by canal. Not suitable for housing due to previous land use.
Definitely, as a continuation of the above, 850 dwellings would provide housing & employment in
that area and link town centre.
dependent on access
destroys rural aspect of south approach - again would increse traffic down already busy road
Development in Area G may impact on FPs Gawsworth 5 and Sutton 46 (canal towpath) on the
periphery of the area. It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would
have to be a strong case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to
encourage more people to live in the town centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre.
Objective 2 (p10) includes ˜improving connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I
draw your attention to Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years
awaiting the availability of funds to repair retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has
been set for the execution of these repairs.
Development of this area and or Area E would destroy the break between Macclesfield and Sutton
flying in the face of national planning policy. The council should be seeking to improve some of the
dereliction within the towns boundaries before destroying the surrounding countryside which it
claims is one of the unique features of the town
Development of this site would not have the same visual impact as development on the nearby Site
F
Dont know some areas to comment. Generally All Sites: 1) Greenbelt boundaries should only be
altered in exceptional circumstances “ vital for present and future generations. 2) Brown field sites
should be used for housing . 3) Preserve green open spaces. Green ˜lungs are vital between areas of
Don't over build here.
Employment should be a priority in this area
Employment zone, close or adjacent to existing commercial area
expanding boundary of town development - wrong side of canal.
Extend Lyme Green Business Park then add limited housing to the extremities of the site
Gaw End Lane offers a sustainable opportunity to assist in meeting the future development needs of
Macclesfield area. Strongly support the future development proposed for the land at Gaw End Lane.
Request that this option is taken forward in the final version of Macclesfield Town Strategy with the
land also allocated for housing and /or employment development in the Cheshire East Local Plan.
Page 232
Support: It has been demonstrated that the land offers a clear and sustainable opportunity to assist
in meeting the future development needs of Macclesfield area. In particular, given the location of
the land, its future development would promote sustainable travel and represent a logical,
sustainable infill opportunity ot meet the development needs of Macclesfield. Its development
would also offer other benefits in terms of potential job creation, the opening up public access to
the south side of Macclesfield canal Conservation Area, as well as potential vehicular access
improvements to the Lyme Green Highways Depot and SMDA.
Good area for a reasonable sized mixed use development, close to existing and proposed link roads.
Good for a mixed site. but would need the Silk road to be extended down London Road and link
roads to Congleton and Chelford roads.
Green Belt and ASCV in previous plans
Green Belt attractive countryside very poor acccess extends from Macc out towards the Fools Nook
from canal on Main Rd to Ray's Wood!
green belt land
Green belt land
Green belt land - need to keep Macclesfield and Lyme Green separate
Green Belt land and an area of attractive countryside. Unsuitable for development due to poor
accessibility. There is a fundamental and integral duty to future generations in the preservation of
this important Green Belt area of Macclesfield.
Green Belt land which is attractive countryside with poor access and would if developed extend
Macclesfield out towards the Fools Nook
Green Belt should basically remain protected, but there would possibly be scope to extend a mixture
of housing and employment near to existing buildings (Lyme Green Business Park).
Green Belt site + and fringe of special county value should be presepcted.
Green Belt! Attractive countryisde, poor access, extends Macc, towards Fools Nook etc
Green belt. Poor access. Extends Macc towards the Fools Nook. Attractive countryside.
Green Belt. Strongly disagree
Green Belt. The proposal is that this land could be allocated for housing or employment but Cheshire
does not need any more employment land “ it should be releasing more of what it is currently
holding. Totally unsuitable. SHOULD BE REJECTED
Housing and employment
Housing in this area would probably be most suitable.
I am unsure. It's in the Green Belt, but development here might not impact many neighbours. The
effect of traffic should be OK
Page 233
need space.
I disagree that the existing Green Belt should be reduced for all the reasons I have already stated.
This would lead to gradual urban sprawl, which in this area would harm Macclesfield and its
surroundings.
I disagree with deveoping on green belt land
I don't have sufficient information to make a choice.
wherever possible.
I object to the use of any geen belt land when there is already derelict and brownfield areas within
the town.
I repeat the comment I made on Site A above.
leaving the greenbelt intact. Sites A, B , C, E, F,G, I and J are all used as recreational ˜lungs of the
town which link to small internal green spaces. The existing public transport system is far from
satisfactory and therefore extending the towns boundaries will put more pressure on an already
inadequate service.
Ideal
Ideal site for Sports development
heritage assets should be assessed. I would refer you our guidance on Heritage in local plans:how to
been redeveloped. In previous Local Plans this is Green Belt and Area of Special County Value
(ASCV), contains Nature Conservation Priority Areas (NCPA).
town?
It does seem a bit far out -- the town would surely be spreading too far.
It is green belt . such development would join Lyme green to Macclesfield.its by the canal that is a
conservation area and danes moss a site of special scientific intrest
Its a natural growth for the towns expansion. it is flat and is on a major road
Its potential for large numbers of houses make this attractive and it is near the Lyme Green Business
Page 234
Park.
Keep greenbelt
Keep new developments to edges of town.
Keep the green green
Key conservation areas, green areas between Sutton/Langley, sites of special scientific interest etc.
Questionable access for housing development.
Land at Gaw End Lane is only 22 and a half acres. It is a place of wild life and one side is the canal.
Save this GREEN BELT.
Leave alone.
Less obtrusive, keep below canal
loss of green belt qute far from the town would be a problem
Lossof green space and loss of wild life. I strongly disagree with loss of green belt land.
Mixed development preferred
Narrow gap between Macclesfield and Lyme Green should be protected. These sites are already
protected fro their landscape importance, and could be used for recreational purposes e.g. playing
fields. Road system is totally inadequate here. Site adjacent to Lyme Green Settlement - largest
housing area in the Borough specially designed for disabled people. The canal forms well defined
boundary for the green belt and is a conservation area. Danes Moss Nature reserve and SSSI
extensively used for walking, cycling and bird watching. Use brownfield sites, vacant mills etc.
Consider there are plenty of brown field sites.
Need to maintain the Green Belt between Macclesfield and Lyme Green. Lyme Green and Sutton
should not become a dormatory of Macclesfield. The Canal area should be enhanced and given
greater protection.
sites
needs redevelopment
Needs to be fairly small scale.
Needs using for something now there's no recycling plant to be built
No “ Green Belt
no view as I don't know the area any development here needs to consider where they will work so as
to avoid transport chaos
NO! Development here should be resisted.
Not a good area on Peat Bog. Unexploded bomb present possibly in the peat bog from 2nd World
War
Not if green belt but who wants to live so near the tip
Not necessary
Page 235
Not on Green Belt
On Existing Green Belt. Would spoil the countryside and views of hills
Only to include the farm buildings and land north of Gaw End Lane.
Only viable if the 2 new link roads H and I are built first
Open area able to be planned effectively without impact to current residencies.
the town centre.
Pity to spoil the country side around the canal unless the developments showed spectacular
architecture
Possibly, but too far out from town's facilities
Preserve Maacc Moss
Reasonable access
retain green belt
Ridiculous. Leave it as it is.
Same comment as F above.
Same reason as above.
See above
See above.
See preliminary comments above for E
SHOULD ONLY BE LOW LEVEL DEVELOPMENT FOR AESTHETIC REASONS. NEED TO BE WARY OF SUBSOIL CONDITIONS. NEEDS ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL.
permitted Development of any greenbelt areas around the town would cause an unnecessary
centre so is likely to cause a dormitory estate unless the facilities at Heald Green are improved
widely. If additional employment is to be provided sufficient parking is required as, for example, the
road around Heald Green become choked during office hours For mixed development good
Sites F (London Road) & G (Gaw End Lane) I do not accept should be developed. The reasons being:
They form a well defined Green Belt function of preventing towns and villages from merging, and
therefore losing their identity. The Green Belt has clearly defined boundaries in this part of
Page 236
Macclesfield, following London Road south to the canal, and the canal west to the railway line. The
sites are both Areas of Special County Value for landscape, forming part of the Peak Fringe. The
landscape character of these areas has not changed over the past 20 years, and therefore this
landscape protection should remain. Both sites could form a positive role in being used for outdoor
recreation. The Gaw End Lane abuts both the Canal Conservation Area, and the Danes Moss Site of
Special Scientific Interest; both recognise the sensitivity of the area in relation to development. The
Gaw End Lane site also suffers from having no suitable access points on to London Road. This road
has a number of sub standard access points, and poor alignment and visibility at the canal bridge.
Situtated near access road. Development may enhance local area
Sprawl beyond well defined urban limits. Coalescence issues with Lyme Green/Sutton. Visually
prominent.
development-one of the main criteria for chosing the sites should be their sustainability which is
Sutton Parish Council, resolved to make strong formal representations against the inclusion of land
identified as ˜F (land east of London Road) and ˜G (land at Gaw End Lane) within the Draft
Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation document for potential Housing and/or Employment
development. Both sites are within the existing defined Green Belt which the Parish Council, and
representatives of the Stakeholder Panel, seriously consider should remain as an essential feature to
protect and enhance the individual identity of the Sutton Parish rural communities. Development, of
any kind, on the above sites would seriously undermine the viability of retaining this important rural
feature of the Sutton Parish communities. It is extremely important to note that both sites (˜F & ˜G)
are classified as Areas of Special County Value and the loss of such landscape by Housing and/or
Employment development, on the Peak National Park fringe, would impose a serious detrimental
impact upon the amenity value of the area. Again the Parish Council consider that it is essential to
retain and respect the value of this designated area of Special County Value. Both sites (˜F & ˜G) are
bounded by the Macclesfield Canal which, if developed, would have a serious detrimental impact
upon the Canal Conservation Area. The Parish Council fully supports the conservation protection and
is strongly opposed to the development of sites ˜F & ˜G for Housing and/or Employment purposes.
The Parish Council are not convinced that the potential use of Brown Field Sites within Macclesfield
have been fully explored and are of the opinion that further appraisal of such sites, along with the
town centre redevelopment opportunity, could significantly reduce the need to unnecessarily exploit
the use of Areas of Special County Value within the Green Belt. During the Stakeholder Panel
considerations there was a clear indication that sites ˜F & ˜G were ˜Not Favoured for development
and that the Green Belt and Area of Special County Value designations should be respected. This is a
view strongly supported by Sutton Parish Council and the local community.
Take ot back to nature.
Page 237
an attractive ˜waterway setting, for example the removal of litter from the water and maintenance
of the towpath.
and the area to the North West of Macclesfield is recognised as being of œspecial county value. I
could therefore not support any development of sites A, B or C and would not be in favour of
developing any of the other sites within the green belt. There is magnificent countryside surrounding
can be seen.
The Land at Gaw End Lane is in the Green Belt, and lies south of the well defined Green Belt
boundary, formed by the Macclesfield Canal. There are several important planning reasons why this
site should not be developed, for example: ¢ building on the land at Gaw End Lane site would
connect Macclesfield and Lyme Green; it is important however that existing green gaps are retained.
Which is an important function of the Green Belt. ¢ The site is of considerable landscape importance,
as designated in the Macclesfield Local Plan, since it forms part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of
Special County Value for landscape. ¢ Macclesfield Canal is an important Conservation Area, and any
development would have a potential impact on it. ¢ Across the canal is the nationally recognised
Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest. ¢ Access to the site is unsatisfactory, with several
substandard access points onto London Road, and restrictive visibility, & visibility at the bridge over
the canal. The site at Gaw End Lane should continue to be protected as Green Belt, and an Area of
Special County Value for landscape. It could be developed for appropriate recreational uses, which
are compatible with its Green Belt status.
The land is swamp-land / poor even from a grazing point of view. There are enough brown field sites
within Macclesfield that could be developed before expanding into yet more greenbelt land. From
memory the soil samples that were removed from the council yard at the start of the year were
heavily contaminated with dangerous levels of Arsenic/heavy metals. One would presume that this
contamination would have leached out into the surrounding area. Access to and from the site would
be an issue if located near the canal bridge
There needs to be a presumption against the use of land in the Green Belt
considered?
These sites are designated as Priority Habitat Floodplain Grazing marsh. Site F is also a NCPA in the
Local Plan. Again, not appropriate for development from a nature conservation point of view.
This area has had housing and considerable business development in the last 25 years and should be
suitable for further development.
This area is close to country walks and a very attractive stretch of canal and would be contrary to
Objective 6 Environment
This area is close to country walks with very attractive views.
This area should remain green belt as it is on the fringe of Macclesfield and provides a setting for
beautiful country walks to the canal and also Danes Moss which has recently had work done to
Page 238
improve it to help provide a natural environment to encourage more wildlife. This area also has a
brook running though it which provides homes and feeding ground for many species of wildlife.
This area would deliver a large number of houses
This could be one of the better options but I don't have enough information to know. It is in the
Green Belt now; what were the reasons for that?
This green belt should be preserved.
This is a pleasant area of land providing part of the setting to the southern approaches to
Macclesfield along the A523 only, currently, affected in any significant way by the existing Councils
Depot. This would be an extension that would completely join Lyme Green to Macclesfield and
would be an extensive projection into the open countryside adjacent to Danes Moss and the
Macclesfield Canal which would adversely impact on the Conservation Area. If the Councils Depot
was no longer required then a modest redevelopment of it might be appropriate.
This is Green Belt and should not be developed because it would join Macclesfield and Lyme Green.
It is an important landscape site forming part of the Peak Park Fringe area of Special County Value
for landscape, as designated in the Macclesfield Local Plan. Once this function is lost there is no
going back. Macclesfield Canal is an important conservation area and any development would
adversely effect it. There is also the Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest which could also
suffer. In addition, access to the site could cause safety promblems on London Road because of
restricted visibility.
This is next to it and has been for sale for a long time.
This is poor land taht could be developed without significant impact on the surrounding
environement.
This is the break between Lyme Green, Sutton and Macclesfield. it includes the canal which is a
popular area for fishing, boating, cycling and walking. Access to those sites would be unsatisfactory.
Roads are not adequate.
this is too far out of town and Its in the green belt
This land is a mecca for wildlife and the lane is used by many walkers
This lane is unsuitable for further development
This seems a natural are to expand into,
This should encourage the employment the town needs and provide affordable houses close by to
reduce travel costs and carbon emissions and has reasonable access.
This site is green belt and lies south of the well defined green belt area formed by the Macc canal.
Access to the site is unsatisfactory.
This site is Green Belt, and lies south of the well-defined Green Belt boundary formed by the
Macclesfield Canal. There are several important reasons why this site should not be developed.
These are:- * the site would join up Macclesfield and Lyme Green; its important that existing green
gaps are retained. This is an important function of the Green Belt. * the site is of considerable
landscape importance, as it forms part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special County Value for
landscape, as designated in the Macclesfield Loca Plan. * Macclesfield Canal is an important
Conservation Area, and any development would have a potential impact on it. * across the canal is
the mationally recognised Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest. * access to the site is
unsatisfactory, with several substandard access points onto London Road, and restrictive visibility,
and visibility at the bridge over the canal. The site should continue to be protected as Green Belt,
and an Area of Special County Value for landscape. It could be developed for appropriate
Page 239
recreational uses compatible with its Green Belt status.
This site is identified within the SA as an area of historic landscape character, which may be more
likely to support established and mature habitats.
This site is in the Green Belt which must be left intact and as is. The access to any development
would be poor since there is a natural rise here. The canal must not be compromised, again a unique
characteristic of the southern end of Macclesfield.
This site is in the Green Belt, and lies south of the well defined Green Belt boundary formed by the
Macclesfield Canal. There are several important planning reasons why this site should not be
developed. These are: · the site would join up Macclesfield and Lyme Green; it is important that
existing green gaps are retained. This is an vital function of the Green Belt. · The site is of
considerable landscape importance, as it forms part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special County
Value for landscape, as designated in the Macclesfield Local Plan. · Macclesfield Canal is an
important Conservation Area, and any development would have a potential impact on it. · Across the
canal is the nationally recognised Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest. · Access to the site is
unsatisfactory, with several substandard access points onto London Road, and restrictive visibility, &
poor visibility at the bridge over the canal. The site should continue to be protected as Green Belt,
developed. These are: ¢ the site would join up Macclesfield and Lyme Green; its important that
existing green gaps are retained. This is an important function of the Green Belt. ¢ The site is of
considerable landscape importance, as it forms part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special County
Value for landscape, as designated in the Macclesfield Local Plan. ¢ Macclesfield Canal is an
important Conservation Area, and any development would have a potential impact on it. ¢ Across
the canal is the nationally recognised Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest. ¢ Access to the
site is unsatisfactory, with several substandard access points onto London Road, and restrictive
visibility, & visibility at the bridge over the canal. The site should continue to be protected as Green
Belt, and an Area of Special County Value for landscape. It could be developed for appropriate
developed. These are: ¢The site would join up Macclesfield and Lyme Green; it is important that
existing green gaps are retained. This is a vital function of the Green Belt. ¢The site is of considerable
landscape importance, as it forms part of the Peak Park Fringe Area of Special County Value for
landscape, as designated in the Macclesfield Local Plan. ¢Macclesfield Canal is an important
Conservation Area, and any development would have a potential impact on it. ¢Across the canal is
the nationally recognised Danes Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest. ¢Access to the site is
unsatisfactory, with several substandard access points onto London Road, and restrictive visibility, &
poor visibility at the bridge over the canal. The site should continue to be protected as Green Belt,
This site should provide emploment land, but only when other employment land areas such as
Tytherington and the SMDA have been occupied.
This site would provide a lot of houses in an area that is already residential
This was also previously a Special County Vaue area.
This would be an extension of the housing already in this area and has the potential to provide a
large number of homes
This would make sense as it could join onto Lyme Green business park and make more out of this
area.
This would seem an ideal location for business use as it would be on outskirts of the town. It could
Page 240
also be used for housing.
Too far out from the town centre and does not form a natural boundary to the Green Belt.
Too far out of town
Too far out of town
Too far out of town
Too far out of town
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual ammenity - there are protected species such as
We have plenty of empty business premises. Fill these first. Also empty shops in town centres.
Well positioned for new business developments
why not this bolt on should be benefial to the area
land in the first instance. You dont need to consider more ˜business uses “ we have loads of business
Page 241
Q3. Site H: South Macclesfield Development Area (Mixed Use)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site H in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site H
This must go ahead to ensure the future of Macclesfield as a valued town in Cheshire. It is also very
important to provide a new stadium for Macclesfield Town Football Club as this will provide facilities
which are no existant and badly lacking in the area at the moment.
A large and unattractive area of town already earmarked for development. The obvious place to
concentrate any new mixed use development that is necessary.
A plan already exists for the development of this area
A strong contender for development, as there is already a well developed site there.
Additional housing of cicra 1,000 dwellings could be accomodated in this area. This large area has
been allocated for employment use for 20 years and yet still remains undeveloped.
Affordable housing to buy and to rent. Employment opportunities for residents of South
Macclesfield is desirable.
Agree to the road cutting through from London Road to Congleton Road/
agree with housing and community facitlities and new road, not with retail park
Agree with mixed development proposal.
Agree with using land reclaimation for building.
Agreed subject to the development being retained to the north side of the Link Road as shown on
Diagram 1.
Already a 'mixed' economy and no change to character of the area.
Already an Employment Area in this Strategy Document, and in previous Local Plans. Also essential
to allow South Macclesfield Relief Road to proceed
Already being used and an eyesore
Already being used, redevelopment?
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site H
Page 242
Area already in use for housing/employment - need to continue development. Not in Green Belt so
use it
Because its not in the green belt
Best use of reclaimed land
Better than building on Green Belt - use other options first.
Better to put new housing on the edges of an already built up town.
Broadly agree that this area is suitable for development - but question the association with link road
to Henbury area that passes through large amount of greenbelt land.
Brownfield sites would be better
Brownfield. The tip area needs redeveloping anyway. The new road will help traffic flow in general
Macclesfield Town Football Club want to move.
But access to the countryside beyond and availability of outdoor/countryside recreational facilities
should be incorporated into development plans
jobs?
Construction of new road linking A537 to A523 must proceed development of G, H and I
Could cope with growth if the new road's built
Definitely, reasons as above
Develop commercial area for employment
Develop Town Centre - not out of town! Football support - rarely 2000 so why a 10,000 seater
stadium!
Do NOT build on Danes Moss! Is it not clear from the 'Danegate' episode 10 /11 years ago that
people want this area to remain preserved as wildlife habitat?
Don't think it will be possible to include significant amount of retail development and simultaneously
re-invigorate town centre
Dubious about significant retail
Especially suitable particularly with a new link road.
evidence suggests just more car showrooms and tin sheds - Lyme green business area already
blighted by these.
First priority for new housing and employment uses should be the existing built up area.
Page 243
Tytherington Business Park (site D) and South Macclesfield Development Area (site H) have
remained undeveloped for over 20 years .
Fits with the apparent need for a new road.
For housing. Large area, has been allocated for employment for 20 years & remains undeveloped.
For more housing land has been allocated for employment for 20yrs + remains undeveloped . Could
accomadate 1,000 houses!
For more housing; supermarket and cinema. Still underdeveloped
Give priority to the town center.
Good area for a reasonable sized mixed use development, close to existing and proposed link roads
Good for a mixed site. but would need the Silk road to be extended down London Road and link
roads to Congleton and Chelford roads. Many opportunities that could benifit the south of
Macclesfield
Good option.
Great potential for recreational use. Not Green Belt, but close proximity to Danes Moss. Visible
landscape “ a very beautiful approach to town.
Housing and employment but not retail.
Housing and small shops. No need to relocate football stadium (also moves it further away from bus
/ train stations).
I am opposed to development of this area for Employment, Retail, Housing etc. This area could be
returned to peat moss and form an extension of the Danes Moss nature reserve which would be
great visitor attraction and educational amenity such as Risely Moss near Warrington. I also strongly
object to the development of the relief road. I feel that it is unnecessary and traffic congestion could
be mitigated via a combination of better traffic management and improved public transport. If this
section of relief road is built then pressure to continue it to Chelford road and thereby destroy the
Site Of Biological Importance would be huge. This should not be allowed to happen.
I am particularly interested in the SMDA plan. I live in Gawsworth and welcome the idea of a
supermarket and leisure facilities in this area. Looking forward to the project getting approved and
the work to commence!
I disagree as this place is quite built up already and would therefore continue the urban sprawl
further into the countryside.
I favour the development of South Macclesfield Development Area (Site H) for up to 1,000 houses.
I strongly dissaprove of the south Macclesfield development area plan.i have lived on Congleton
road for 35 years and have enjoyed the views and open landscape and totally dissaprove of the
proposal.Please go back 10 years to danegate as it is known .my views are exactlly the same now as
then as do many many of us in this area.A football stadium for 7,000 people when the average
crowd can be no more than 2,000 and they are not even in the league any more.Please check the
records and the proposal is identical to 10 years ago.My family strongly dissaprove of these awful
plans (again)
I support this as it is not Green Belt.
I support this development because it can offer housing and employment close together.
I think I have already made my views on SMDA clear elsewhere! I am strongly opposed to any
measures that encourage yet more retail outlets in out of town locations. I just do not understand
why the council are so set on having a development in this location anyway. I would rather see the
effort and investment spent on the town centre itself.
I would agree with the use of this site, as long as it did not lead to pressure to expand into the areas
F and G (see above).
I would concede that the link road may be necessary, but we should beware of the discredited
Page 244
"predict and provide". I do not see the need for retail development. I thought the idea was to
revitalise the town centre. As for retail sheds there are enough at Lyme Green.
If a suitable programme for dealing with the methaneous off-gassing of the existing landfill site were
in place, this area could be developed, but I question where landfill will be allocated in the future.
The SMDA proposition is to use an AD plant which is a commendable approach to the future of
waste disposal, but Danes Moss Nature reserve must not be breached. Allocating this site does beg
the question as to what the Council's initial ideas were in relation to the construction of a new
Recycling Centre there?
If the link road goes ahead then there is no reason why homes could not be built here too.
I'm commenting on this area beause I used to live here and know it. In principle, this seems a good
area to develop by a natural extension of the existing estates at the town/countryside border. The
only reservations I have are (a) my general reservation that not enough funding will be made
available for ensuring that the road access is adequate for both new and old residents, and (b) the
land in this part of town is pretty boggy or peaty and there have been problems with subsidence in
existing properties.
town?
Is shown incorrectly as inside the built up area on map in TS. There are 3 Priority Habitats here:
lowland grazing marsh, lowland raised bog and woodland. The site sites at the edge of Danes Moss
Macclesfield Town Strategy. Comments by Cheshire Wildlife Trust 1.10.2012 NR and development
would prejudice future expansion of the NR and vital restoration of peatland habitat.
It is not Green Belt land.
It should also be exploring whether more housing could be delivered in that part of the South
Macclesfield Development Area which is covered in the saved Macclesfield Plan policies (i.e.. the
land between the A523 London Road and the A536 Congleton Road).
It should also be exploring whether more housing could be delivered in that part of the South
Macclesfield Development Area which is covered in the saved Macclesfield Plan policies (i.e.. the
land between the A523 London Road and the A536 Congleton Road).
It would be inappropriate to concentrate most of the housing development in this area (potential for
3000 houses) given the present transport infrastructure.
Large area designated for employment for a number of years - nothing taken place. Ideal for
housing.
Least obtrusive site
Leave Danes Moss alone! Stop the SMDA it is environmental suicide.
Leave this area Green, there is no need for this extra blot on the landscape.
Lossof green space and loss of wild life.
Lyme Green landfill site ought to be included in this site, to facilitate better green infrastructure and
linkages to the countryside beyond.
Makes sense
Mixed use development will bring facilities into this area and will also help with ensuring the
construction of the much needed relief road.
Mixed use is more sustainable
Much needed but not clear how the road will be funded!
My agreement is subject to a reservation about the number of proposed dwellings and the need to
protect the residue of Danes Moss peat areas.
Need to keep Danes Moss unspoilt.
Page 245
sites
Needed before housing is added
Needs careful planning to avoid 'sprawl' - Lyme Green etc
Needs great deal of though as it could be opening floodgates
needs redevelopment
New Road a good idea Relocating Football a NO Other employment uses a BIG YES
No major adverse impact
somewhere. This needs very careful consideration. We do not need more supermarkets as this will
drive another nail into the town centre coffin
No. Lyme Green is already a horrendous eye sore. No more of this. Concentrate on the town centre
which is shocking. We have been told for years that the town centre will be redeveloped and still
nothing has happened. Finish one project before you start another The council is wasting yet more
money on plans
Not convinced at the justification for these proposals “ seem to be designed solely to secure the link
road “ retail proposal at odds with town centre focus. Road alignment is wrong in any event.
not in green belt
Not in my view a suitable area but for open space and recreation type applications. The use of Danes
Moss as a sanctuary for all types of wildlife would be appropriate while the play area adjacent to
London Road could be expanded and improved.
Not on Green Belt
Ok “ This is a particularly tatty area which needs to be tidied up.
Orbit still support Site H which should, as a mixed use site, deliver commercial premises along with
leisure facilities, housing and an appropriate scale of retail provision. There is a close relationship
between the South Macc Development Area and Site I, South West Macc, and consider that
development of these sites would be complementary. This would provide for a very valuable link
road between the A523 London Road and the A537 Chelford Rd that would service both
development areas and lead to some traffic relief on roads in and around the town centre. This
would contribute to supporting and bringing prosperity to the town centre. Development of both
sites H and I would provide for the majority of the foreseeable requirements for Macclesfield in what
can be made a sustainable urban extension to the town and reflects Government advice on
accommodating future development and would obviate the need to roll back the Green Belt in areas
that are more sensitive in terms of the purposes for including land within a Green Belt.
Particularly suitable in conjunction with the new road link
Please no more retail park. Large outlets bring retail back to town centre
Potential for the town to have a fantastic sporting facility in a new stadium for MTFC that could be
used by the wider community
provided development is sensitive and still allows reasonable areas of green space/access
Provision of the link road will improve accessibility around the town
Put the cinema here
Page 246
Regeneration of that area needs to continue
Reserve judjement. Area H “ South Macclesfield Development Area “ this has been a long standing
proposal yet little has happened. Access is the key issue with funding for a link road dependent upon
the type of development allocated. Retail development would further detract from the prospects for
the town centre regeneration. Employment allocation appears limited and there are existing waste
management uses that would require relocation. Detailed proposals were to have been brought
forward but their absence perhaps points to a need to reconsider.
See above
see comments regardin moving rugby club MTFC should develop children training too small a
number of dwellings for the disruption
See G above
Seems ideal - keep it mixed as it develops
seems senisble proposal to build on existing
Should be first choice as previously discussed
Should not be dependent on Macclesfield Town Football Club.
Site was allocated for enployment 20 years ago and has never been used.it could be used for
housing and enployment
Strongly agree - opportunity for redevelopment of sporting centres and new transport links
The extent of Area H between the Leek and Congleton Roads is not clear but this could potentially
affect several Macclesfield and Gawsworth footpaths. It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are
all in the Green Belt. There would have to be a strong case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites.
One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage more people to live in the town centre but none of the
Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2 (p10) includes ˜improving connectivity and linkages to
and within the town centre. I draw your attention to Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has
been closed for three years awaiting the availability of funds to repair retaining walls and, at the
time of writing, no date has been set for the execution of these repairs.
The football club is ok where it is and does not need extra capacity as they cant fill existing ground.
Extra retail facilities are not needed here. The A536 does not want any extra traffic
The issues around development on this area are complex and I don't feel sufficiently informed to
judge. I do know that the logistical and financial problems of building on the marshy Danes Moss
won't have gone away since last time this was raised. If however this area is to be developed, then it
makes sense to put housing there too.
The Link road needs to be completed to help the traffic flow around Macclesfield. Development of
this area could ensure this. The deveopment of housing off Moss Lane could be expanded.
The London Road/Congleton Road link is essential, to reduce congestion
Page 247
The need for a new football stadium for Macclesfield Town FC is essential to enable the club to
cement and expand its Community base. Many of the ladies teams have to play away from
Macclesfield and the Community Sports Trust have to hold most of their events away from the
current ground. Facilities would be provided for organisations to use throughout the week bringing
together the community as a whole. Also the players have to train at Sandbach when training at
their own club would be more beneficial for them and the club where facilities would be available
and staff would also be on site. A more modern stadium would hopefully bring more supporters and
provide better bfacilities for exisiting supporters, The new stadium would be more sustainable from
a financial point of view as the current stadium (since 1891) is not cost effective.
The only development I agree with 100%
The plans submitted give no assurance that there will be adequate social and affordable homes, not
just more retail
The Society does not in principle object to H as this is in an area already largely developed.
THE SOONER THE BETTER.
The traffic in this area is already horrendous without adding to it.
There is a splendid nature reserve at Danes Moss.
There needs to be the right balance between land used for employment and for housing, and, in
respect of housing, a recognition of the importance of social and affordable housing
considered?
This are needs further development especially with housing, but improved community transport
would be needed.
This area already provides homes and employment and would be helped by the new road being
built.
This area features an area of mossland as identified within the SA.
This area is already heavily developed for industry (Lyme Green), retail (Lyme Green) and leisure
(Football, Bowling), and it would seem sensible to continue to locate further development in this
area. Transport links to and from the town would need to be improved if this happened.
This area is in need of upgrading. The old housing is based on no-car 50's culture. The adjacent retail
and emplyment parks have no public access service.
This area is not in the Green Belt and is already partly developed.
This area of land does not lie within the Green Belt and is constrained by the landfill site lying to the
south. As a result it is relatively self contained and its development would not appear as a significant
encroachment in to the countryside although there are difficult ground conditions. Mixed use seems
appropriate and it could address solutions to some issues currently outstanding. This site should be
linked to Site I as a sustainable large scale urban extension to Macclesfield which, jointly, would
resolve most of the housing and some of the employment needs and other uses deemed
appropriate for this area together with a link road that could be evolved, in conjunction with Site I
between London Road and Chelford Road which would have some significant highway benefits. A
large scale urban extension would be capable of producing a solution to the development needs for
Macclesfield up to and beyond the end of the Plan Period.
This area seems ideal for housing and mixed business/ retail use - much of this area is "brownfield"
and avoids damaging Green Belt areas.
This area should be used for small housing development only and a buffer zone shoulb be left north
of the waste disposal site
This area was allocated for employment 20 years ago since and remains undeveloped. It would
accomodate e.g. 1000 houses.
This area would appear to be a sensible option which would benefit from investment.
This has been agreed for years.
This has been marked for development for a long period and as with the Tytherington site CEC
Page 248
should continue to prioritise its use
This is a large site that has been allocated for over 20 years as an employment area. It has been
underdeveloped and could be used for housing. There is every indication that due to changing
employment patterns, people working from home, or working in the leisure or retail industries, a
site such as this would be better used partly for housing rather than as an attempt to create jobs.
This is a valuable recreational area, right next to the Moss estate. I think it should be preserved
This is dependant on the new road being put in. This was mooted about 15yrs ago and then
dropped. What has changed ?
This is long overdue. It should have been developed years ago.
This is such a large site that the concern is that it could become an isolated area and not as
interlokced with the town and other areas. It is a significant distance from the railaway station and
town centre so would be concerned for the demand for the housing.
This is the key area for expansion for the town. The region has been planned for development for
many years. An addition of retail, leisure, employment and sporting facilities anchored by the new
stadium for the Football Club will be a great benefit to the town. A development featuring
restaurants a cinema and other leisure facilities would attract people from surrounding towns,
noteably Leek and Congleton.
This is within the current town boundary and isn't green belt. Yes, exploit and enhance it.
This land has been available for development for a considerable period and development has been
limited. It is also noted that both ends of Moss lane become very blocked at peaks times so before
extensive development is initiated the new road must be built (and not just
promised/underconstruction) and linked in to the new development, as increasing the loading of
these junctions through any development in this site would be very poor planning. This land is a
considerable distance from the town centre so is likely to cause a dormitory estate and only have a
limited beneficial effect on the businesses in the town centre For mixed development good
This land is already designated as a mixed use development area in the Macclesfield Plan saved
policies. Macc2020 do not condone building on carbon sinks but reluctantly accept that a previous
Local Plan EiP process has endorsed the development of this land. See our detailed submission on
the SMDA (pages 10,11) CEC INTENT ON RE-RATIFYING
This land is less attractive as greenbelt. There has been much controversy over Danes Moss which
needs to put consigned to history. Let's get a decent development there.
This land is not in the green belt.
This provides a superb opportunity to create both residential, mixed use, bad neighbour and sports
facilities by using brownfiled land and very poor land without encroaching on the greenbelt.
This seems to make sense as there is already shops and offices in this area. If built in conjunctrion
with Macclesfield Town Football Club it would seem to cover almost all aspects required in the
review.
This should be a main development area but only with the provision of new road links to A523 AND
A536
This site could accommodate up to 1,000 houses and the area has been allocated for employment
use for over 20 years but has remained undeveloped.
This site has had development for employment granted for 20 years. Why has it not yet been
developed? 1000 houses could be built here with no detriment to the Green Belt, and any
Page 249
development would presumably provide the much-needed East-West link road for the town. Put
1000 houses here, plus the ones of which the strategy speaks already with permission in the town
centre, plus on sites A, B, C, D and E, and you have an adequate number of new dwellings to take the
town forward into prosperity.
This very large site has been allocated for over 20 years as an employment area. No development
has taken place, which indicates that there is little demand , and the site is unattractive for such
uses. As a consequence it is suggested that the site should be developed for mainly housing. It could
accommodate up to 1,000 as well as some employment. Housing would also fund the infrastructure
costs including the link road across the area. The issue of the overprovision of employment land is
one which the Council has recognised over the past year by permitting housing on the Stevens
haulage site in Gunco Lane, the Rieter Scragg site at Langley and the Kay Metzeler site in Bollington.,
as well as on the East Tytherington Business Park. Most jobs in the Macclesfield area have not been
created on sites allocated for employment purposes, and this will become increasingly the case as
more and more people work from home, and more people are employed in the leisure & retail
sectors.
has taken place, which indicates that there is little demand and the site is unattractive for such uses.
As a consequence it is suggested that the site should be developed for mainly housing. It could
costs including the link road across the area. The issue of the overprovision of employment land is
one which the Council has recognised over the past year by permitting housing on the Stevens
haulage site in Gunco Lane, the Rieter Scragg site at Langley and the Kay Metzeler site in Bollington.,
as well as on the East Tytherington Business Park. Most jobs in the Macclesfield area have not been
created on sites allocated for employment purposes, and this will become increasingly the case as
more and more people work from home, and more people are employed in the leisure & retail
sectors.
has taken place, which indicates that there is little demand, and the site is unattractive for such uses.
As a consequence it is suggested that the site should be developed mainly for housing. It could
accommodate up to 1,000 houses as well as some employment. Housing would also fund the
infrastructure costs including the link road across the area. The issue of the overprovision of
employment land is one which the Council has recognised over the past year by permitting housing
on the Stevens haulage site in Gunco Lane, the Rieter Scragg site at Langley and the Kay Metzeler
site in Bollington., as well as on the East Tytherington Business Park. Most jobs in the Macclesfield
area have not been created on sites allocated for employment purposes, and this will become
increasingly the case as more and more people work from home, and more people are employed in
the leisure & retail sector.
As a consequence it is suggested that the site should be developed for mainly housing. it could
costs including the link road across the area. The issue of the overprovision of emplyment land is one
which the Council has recognised over the past year by permitting housing on the Stevens haulage
site in Gunco Lane, the Rieter Scragg site at Langley and the Kay Metzeler site in Bollington, as well
as on the East Tytherington Business Park. Most jobs in the maccelsfield area have not been created
on sites allocated for employment purposes, and this will become increasingly the case as more and
more people work from home, and more people are employed in the leisure and retail sectors
As a consequence it is suggested that the site should be developed mainly for housing. It could
accommodate up to 1,000 houses as well as some employment. Housing would also fund the
Page 250
infrastructure costs including the link road across the area. The issue of the overprovision of
employment land is one which the Council has recognised over the past year by permitting housing
on the Stevens haulage site in Gunco Lane, the Rieter Scragg site at Langley and the Kay Metzeler
site in Bollington., as well as on the East Tytherington Business Park. Most jobs in the Macclesfield
area have not been created on sites allocated for employment purposes, and this will become
increasingly the case as more and more people work from home, and more people are employed in
the leisure & retail sectors.
This would be a potential site for development but retaining the character of Macclesfield town
centre and not in competition
This would seem an ideal location for business use.
This would seem to be a prime site for Housing, turning the Land Fill site into land for housing could
be seen as the ultimate recycling.
This, surely, is the most obvious candidate for development in Macclesfield Town. Its development
as a football and leisure stadium will provide sporting and leisure facilities for the south of
Macclesfield, as housing it will provide many homes, as employment land it will provide many jobs
and finally it will provide the funds to build the London Road to Congleton Road bypass. I would also
suggest that the Rugby and Football Clubs should be encouraged to share the new stadium. This will
combine revenues and ensure greater use of the facility.
Together with Site I, this is the better option as it will have immediate access to the new bypass.
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual ammenity - there are protected species such as
We can use that land as it is an eyesore.
We definitely need the link road and development is this area would help to secure its financing .
Housing would be most likely to produce the needed planning gain. Moreover developed in
conjunction with site D (Tytherington Business Park) would go a long way towards meeting the
target!
We do not need further out of town shopping or a larger football stadium when it is not filled at its
present capacity.
Why exactly is this necessary?
Will cause serious traffic problems
Would be able to infill and also help regenerate areas already there. Money needs to be spent on
supporting the area itself
Would seem to be a good area but need to be careful of how it is executed. Needs to be quality.
Yes for industry, for which it is very suitable. So why bring in housing there? And NOT retail of
anything like town-centre type: don't you people ever learn?
land in the first instance. You dont need to consider more ˜business uses “ we have loads of business
Page 251
Q3. Site I: Land between Congleton Road and Chelford Road (Mixed Use)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site I in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site I
? 3,000 would cover all needs - but would need to be well controlled. Also looks as if it might be
dependent on the go ahead for the link road - which actually seems in the wrong place (North/South
East traffic)
1st class agricultural land.
3000 dwellings in this area is ludicrous. Next to the Weston estate. This is green belt and should be
kept as green belt. Forget retail facilities, that is what you are providing your town centre plan
3000 homes- a mix use area sounds OK BUT the area is of biological importance and has ancient
woodland Lock wood MUST BE PRESERVED or it isn't progress
a significant sized development can be properly planned with the requisite infrastructure in a
position that will not adversly affect the existing communities
Absolutely not “ Green Belt Beautiful farmland, hedgerows, nature must be preserved
Again - much better options available.
Agreed subject to the SW Link Road being constructed. Would appear to exceed the perceived total
housing requirement of 2300 units as referred to in paragraph 6.18.
All development should be on the South side of Macclesfield where employment is needed and
schools have space. Building the link road will help too.
Already an Employment Area in this Strategy Document, and in previous Local Plans. Also essential
to allow South West Macclesfield Relief Road to proceed
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site I
Page 252
Another important environmental site adjacent to Cock Wood. Should be avoided for development
in terms of the environmental impact.
Another Prime site but for housing only. The 'New' road would form a well defined border between
any housing development and the countryside beyond.
Any large scale development here would create another Tytherington. Basically, it would almost
create another featureless town + would encroach on or eliminate an important ancient woodland &
associated habitat.
As a site of special interest, it seems this site should not be developed
As H above
As this area contains a Site of Biological Interest - it should not even be under consideration. This is
clearly a significant environmental asset to the town and should be preserved as such. I completely
object to the development of this site.
balance the town out better, but green belt and near ancient woodland
Beautiful open fields on the wrong side of town for development. There would seem to be no
requirement to encourage further ribbon development along a new and unnecessary road.
Best option
Big Spae. Do we really need all these houses! Better one big plot than spoiling lots of Green Spaces
Both I and J would destroy a rich agricultural environment and to urbanize it would be an act of
vandalism. You destroy the heritage of the Cheshire Landscape.
Building another Weston Estate next to the existing one is a disgraceful proposal. This land is also
VERY wet.
But access to the countryside beyond and availability of outdoor/countryside recreational facilities
should be incorporated into development plans, preferably protecting and preserving the SSSI &
Cock Woods.
But great care to be taken with preservation of Ancient Woodland as part of a recreational area for
this large mixed use development.
By far the best option. Infrastructure possible without impact on current residencies.
jobs?
Cock Wood and an open area around it should be excluded. The South West Link Road should be the
new Green Belt boundary except fot the last 800 metres or so at the Broken Cross end. The South
West Link Road should be extended north/northeastwards to Site C.
Cockwood/Henbury SBI and AW and grassland, candidate SBI (Birchwood). Again, not appropriate
for development from a nature conservation point of view.
Completely disagree. Far too large a development in all aspects - road, number of dwellings etc.
Construction of new road linking A537 to A523 must proceed development of G, H and I
Could cope with growth if the new road's built
Could solve the problem for 3000 housed but has environmental downside with biological
impotance and ancient woodland
Damage to the natural environment (as a keen amateur naturalist I know that this is a good area for
Page 253
moths). Also, pressure on local roads.
Develop either sites leave this rural
Development here would not affect the land gap between the site and the next settlement,
Knutsford.
Development in this site is an inevitable consequence of the needed new road
Development of the area of land to the SW of Macclesfield seems to make to most sense, the
proposed new road will redirect non-town centre traffic relieving congestion. The area will supply
large enough communities to sustain Additional local amenities within the development and this will
see Macclesfield developing sustainably over the period. The area of land in the South West is
suitable for development in terms of topography and ecology; this was indeed established nearly 20
years ago. The land is available, whilst we live in this area and love being in the countryside on the
edge of town, we have children of our own who would like to stay in Macclesfield, consequently we
do recognise that extension of housing provision is both necessary and inevitable and everyone has
to accept the development or there would be insufficient housing for future generations. As
Macclesfield residents we believe this area in the SW would allow the town to grow in a planned and
sustainable way being of sufficient size to encompass any necessary infrastructure installations,
especially the new road which would benefit us all.
Disagree with building houses between Congleton Road and Chelford Road - will do away with
Henbury as a village
Disagree with proposed scale of this development. Smaller scale development should be considered.
Don't build on Green Belt
Easy option for developers that destroys large areas of green belt & just allows uncontrolled spread
of town into greenbelt. Next step would be houses to the south of link road. Impact on environment
& charector of area significant.
Encroachment on to agricultural land green belt land would adversely affect agricultural activity in
the area. Light and noise pollution would be an issue affecting the local area and environment
Especially suitable particularly with a new link road.
Far too much suggested houses. Ancient woodland and site of biological importance being
compromised yet again. All in the green belt with farms using the land for agriculture
Farm land. Leave alone.
Footpaths affected by Area I include Gawsworth 18, 19, 24 and 29 and possibly 20, 21, 22 and 30 to
the south. It is noted that Areas B, C, E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have to be
a strong case for these i.e. no alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage
more people to live in the town centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2
(p10) includes ˜improving connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I draw your
attention to Step Hill, Footpath Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years awaiting the
availability of funds to repair retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has been set for the
execution of these repairs.
Green belt
Green Belt
Green Belt
Page 254
Green Belt
Green belt
Green Belt
Green Belt
Green Belt and agricultural land and includes ancient woodland and SBI. Totally unsuitable. SHOULD
BE REJECTED
green belt land
Green belt land
Green belt land and its integrity must be protected
Green Belt should remain protected, particularly in view of the Site of Biological Importance there.
Greenbelt
Housing and employment but not retail.
however, some kind of by-pass between Chelford Rd & Congleton Rd could be useful
I am horrified that this area is being considered for mixed use. The estate here is already large with
no open spaces or play areas for children. There is no where to walk a dog unless you walk out to the
country. I am completely opposed to any development here.The council should be concentrating on
regenerating the town centre and other areas that already have derelict buildings on. I can not
believe beautiful green fields are to be destroyed and yet Barracks Mill is lying derelict and in a
terrible mess. I am tired of this area in Macclesfield being given the short straw. No development on
green fields here.
I believe this again serves only to unlock land for furture development and should be discounted.
I broadly agree with the site but feel the scale of the proposal is too large. I would ask that ancient
woodland is not lost to future generations.
I disagree for the same reasons I gave for Site C
I don't know enough about this area to comment or form a view, save that all my concerns about the
loss of green fields and the countryside apply. Have the planners taken a hard look at the available
land that might be developed for housing within Macclesfield as it is currently ? To aim to build on
the green areas when there are neglected sites in the town is not forward looking. We risk harming
the environs which are so important to us all, while at the same time allowing areas of blight to
remain inside the town. Macclesfield will have suburbs which will lose the town's character and
Page 255
attraction.
wherever possible.
I object to the use of any geen belt land when there is already derelict and brownfield areas within
the town.
I strongly diasgree with this development because it will slice deeply into the very Green Belt you
pledge to "value" and it will require a very significant and expensive new road project, the only
proven purpose of which will be to serve the development itself. It appears to be a resurection of a
proposal made in 1995 that failed at a Public Enquiry for good reasons and I see no up to date
evidence of why those reasons have changed.
I suspect planners are desperate to get a road across there and so developing the area is favoured
for development.This is a very special area and the peat areas should never be encroached upon. It
might be acceptable to build over the tip area, if that is technically poossible..
leaving the greenbelt intact. Sites A, B , C, E, F,G, I and J are all used as recreational ˜lungs of the
town which link to small internal green spaces. The existing public transport system is far from
satisfactory and therefore extending the towns boundaries will put more pressure on an already
inadequate service.
Ideal area for development - although in Green Belt, minimal impact on other communities etc and
links into south west link road which is needed
Ideally the best location. Impact is limited to one area and full development would included required
infrastructure, including primary school, roads, local shops etc... Gives the best delivery for Localism
If a new road is constructed then I would support this proposal.
If Green Belt must be encroached upon, this would be my preference, particularly as a new road is
proposed here anyway.
IF it is to be green field site, better to spoli only one
If link road between Congleton Road + A537 is built
If the link road goes ahead then there is no reason why homes could not be built here too.
If, and only if, we need to increase the number of houses as you've outlined, then it makes sense to
do this in one development. But it will have a terrible affect on a beautiful part of the town.
Impact on the environment sites is not well explained Given the size of the development and hence
impact, would need more info
been redeveloped.
In the Green Belt. But if the town really DOES need 3500 houses (which I questioned earlier), then
they could nearly all be accomodated by this site. It would need suitable roads and probably a 2forms-per-year primary school. It would have a massive effect on the area, though.
town?
its been a long time coming cant see a real problem
Its potential for large numbers of houses make this attractive and it fits with the apparent need for a
Page 256
new road.
Keep greenbelt
keep inside new road
Keep the agricultural land and sites of Biological Importance. Keep the Greenbelt land. Do not add
any more retail. Lyme Green retail is ample to the south of town.
Leaving biologically important land and ancient woodlands as "green area"
Lossof green space and loss of wild life. I strongly disagree with loss of green belt land.
makes sense if building a new link road to run well thought out estates off this.
Maybe. But this would only work if both the new link roads happen, otherwise there will be too
much pressure on current road junctions. And this would mean presumably a new road coming into
Henbury with associated roundabout and traffic. Which would then lead to pressure on the Broken
Cross junction, already a choke point. And wasn't the idea of building a south-west link road thrown
out by the courts some time back?
Mixed use is more sustainable
More retail?
Most of this area has small farmers who you have pledged to keep. The land also has one of the only
sites with ancient woodland. It also has various ponds and watercourses which are essential to
keeping the land from flooding. I believe there have been wildlife surveys however the true extent of
the wildlife in this area, has not been fully assessed. There are certainly erythistic badgers, owls,both
tawny and little owls, and even great crested newts in the area, although I believe a recent survey
failed to find any, I have it on good authority, they were a month or two early to find any..
sites
needed before housing is built
Needs great deal of though as it could be opening floodgates
Needs to be looked at as a package with A,B,C & J. I think there may be a danger of creting a bit of an
urban sprawl.
No development in the Green Belt
Macclesfield.
Not on Green Belt
Not required already plenty of empty property.
Only agree to this as it would fund a new bypass road
Only if new access raod incorporates new link A536-A537
Page 257
Only if the new road is built
Only really suitable site
Open countryside
the town centre.
Particularly suitable when linked to the new road.
Preserve the site of Biological Importance and the Ancient Woodland. Enhance these as a
community asset.
Provided sufficient environmental protection given would seem logical, provided new road is
completed to fill in land 'inside' the cordon. Adequate infrastructure would be needed and
expansion of local primary schools
Providing any woodland was preserved it would make a suitable area for developement.
Provision of the "relief" road seems to be essential (and previously agreed?) so, although additional
development for housing would obviously impinge on the Green Belt (and provision made for sites
of scientific importance), the "impact" would seem to be less than elsewhere if the road is going
through this area anyway. An added "attraction" of this option (if that is not being too flippant) is
that the figures quoted in the Consultation document seem to suggest that ALL of the future housing
needs could be met by development here (i.e. the 2300 "balance" by 2030 when all "brownfield"
and current planning permission options are discounted)? This would certainly satisfy the "cohesive"
rather than "scattergun" approach that I advocated earlier
Provision of the link road will improve accessibilty around the town
Requires retailer study Area I “ land between Congleton Road and Chelford Road “ this option may
merit further study as it has the potential to extend beyond the current plan period. Lansdcape
impact may well be manageable but any development would require careful phasing and long term
boundary definition. Potential to be planned for public transport access but journey into town
centre and to other services potentially the longest of all options.
SBI and ancient woodland
See above
see comments above
See G above
See Site H comment.
Should c
Site of Biological Importance and Cock Wood - an Ancient Woodland
greenbelt land is to be used then suitable road access must be in improved before any development
Page 258
is permitted - in particular the new road must be built (and not just promised/underconstruction)
and linked in, as the Flowerpot crossroads and Broken Cross roundabout are already bottlenecks and
increasing the loading of these junctions through any development in this site would be very poor
planning. Development of any greenbelt areas around the town would cause an unnecessary degree
of devastation to the local fauna and flora. This land is a considerable distance from the town centre
so is likely to cause a dormitory estate and only have a limited beneficial effect on the businesses in
the town centre
So long as ancient wood is preserved
Specifically the side of this adjacent to Congleton Road - the Gawsworth Road area (West) is too
rural at this stage.
Strongly disagree. It's attractive green belt supporting much eco-diversity. A definite no!
Strongly disagree. This land should not be built on!"
The area is within the Green Belt and should not be built on. A Site of Biological importance is also
part of the area.
The best option. Large number of houses in one place sufficiently out of built up area.
The comments within the consultation document are agreed but because of the potential size of this
area all matters such as addressing the retention of important site features can be resolved through
any detailed development proposals. Development of this site would be mutually complementary to
the development of Site H and has the potential to provide for development well beyond the Plan
Period and with structured landscaping and open space would not lead to coalescence with
Henbury.
The development proposed to the East between the Chelford and Congelton Roads would have a
detrimental effect on the area, a mixed development when there are brown field sites available
elsewhere is illogical. If the 3000 proposed homes are built it would permenantly change the nature
and charcter of this mature estate. Build smaller estates more spread out across the area to reduce
impact. This smacks of a council building homes to feed a school that should never have been built. I
refer of course to the Macclesfield High/Henbury amalgamation and the Macclesfield Academy.
and the area to the North West of Macclesfield is recognised as being of œspecial county value. I
could therefore not support any development of sites A, B or C and would not be in favour of
developing any of the other sites within the green belt. There is magnificent countryside surrounding
can be seen.
Page 259
The Land is mostly Green belt and Greenfield. There is a multitude of wildlife including many ponds
that are used by the wildlife and the locals alike. The wildlife is extensive including Newts, frogs and
toads,voles, badgers(including erythristic badgers), tawny and little owls.pheasants and french
partridges etc. The land provides natural flood plains so extra building would destroy not only the
wildlife but would increase the prevelance for flooding existing and new potential homes.The roads
all flood everytime there is a rain shower and takes days to drain away already. Macclesfield has a
wealth of farmland is therfore a pleasant place to live.
The loss of ancient woodland would be a great pity: its destruction could hardly be described as
"sustainable" development!
the size of this development and its effect on the overall nature of the Macclesfield, loss of a major
chunk of Green Belt, implications for access through to the east of Macclesfield makes this proposal
unacceptable
The suggestion that the area could deliver 3000 dwellings is ludicrous. The area is in the Green Belt
and should remain so. Any significant development will upset the dynamics of the town and the
village of Gawsworth. In the last review, prior to the then borough plan in 1995, residents showed
the ecological and environmental value of the area. At the public enquiry the Inspector could see no
justification for many extra dwellings and the borough's proposals were finally overruled by the then
Cheshire County Council.
The 'virgin' nature of the land with open aspects on most boundaried would appear to offer the
greatest scope for development(by Volume) and if tied in the propose new road, infrastructure can
be built from scratch
There is a close relationship between the South Macc Development Area and Site I, South West
Macc, and consider that development of these sites would be complementary. This would provide
for a very valuable link road between the A523 London Road and the A537 Chelford Rd that would
service both development areas and lead to some traffic relief on roads in and around the town
centre. This would contribute to supporting and bringing prosperity to the town centre.
Development of both sites H and I would provide for the majority of the foreseeable requirements
for Macclesfield in what can be made a sustainable urban extension to the town and reflects
Government advice on accommodating future development and would obviate the need to roll back
the Green Belt in areas that are more sensitive in terms of the purposes for including land within a
Green Belt.
There needs to be a presumption against the use of land in the Green Belt
There would be massive objection if this proposal were to be resurrected
Think that this would be better suited to just housing development but only with improved transport
links
this arae provides a space between town and gawsworth and a rural aspect to south approach - SBI
and ancient woodland should rule this out as should the traffic already using Congleton road
further development.
This area is demonstrably the most appropriate location to relax Green Belt boundaries. Whilst the
site could feasibly include some compatible employment uses, further consideration would need to
be given to this to ensure an acceptable relationship with the residential nature of the surroundings
and new residential neighbourhood. Issues of viability also important and relationship with South
Macclesfield Development area. Openspace/recreation uses can be included. Ecological studies
show mitigation upon the SBI. Sufficient land could be released to meet the needs of the plan period
and beyond “ long term defensible boundary would be established. Development of this scale is
required to deliver necessary infrastructure including South West Macclesfield Link Road.
This area would deliver a large number of houses and could help in revive and support businesses in
Page 260
this area of the town.
This could also help to provide the link road so badly needed.The site could be developed for mixed
use and provision could be made to retain the Ancient Woodland.
THIS is a HUGE number of planned dwellings, way too many. The most populated part of town
already. Has poor road links to the other side of town.
This is an area of agricullture and natural beauty. It should remain so.
This is beautiful greenbelt land and should NOT be developed. This area in particular has a site of
biological importance, farms, fields, hedgerow and trees and is a very important habitat for wildlife.
There are also ponds and public paths and winding country roads. Development of this area would
kill off wildlife, create light pollution and overload narrow country lanes. Development of this area
would impoverish the people of Macclesfield, those who enjoy riding, cycling, walking, fishing,
enjoying the beauty of this very special area. The wildlife, such as the wide variety of birds, from
brightly coloured finches to ducks, geese and pheasants, insect and pond life, depend on us to
preserve this area.
This is currently a beautiful area and there would be too much of a loss to current wildlife and native
habitiation.
This is dependant on the new road being put in. This was mooted about 15yrs ago and then
dropped. What has changed ? Still greenbelt land - still a SSSI.
This is in the green belt
this is in the green belt, a Site of Biological Importance is included within the area and it is adjacent
to Ancient Woodland.
This is prime green belt land.
This is too large an area to comment on as a whole, but certainly some of the land would be
appropriate for development.
This land could easily provide a supermarket, most of Macclesfield's need as and cinema well as
providing East - West link so sorely needed.
This merits careful study as the location for growth up to 2030 and possibly beyond - would need
phasing and careful release of small increments with a range of developers and house types/tenure.
This should ne a priority and a catalyst for a desperately needed new road.
this site and area J could accommodate all the housing which is needed after all brown sites have
been used
This Site includes the area I have cited above and wish to keep as is .
This site would deliver a good return for development without as much compromise to the
environment as other sites.
This would be a massive area of housing, well away from existing amenities. It would promote the
role of Macclesfield as a commuter town rather than a community.
This would be a massive encroachment on the green belt and would totally change the nature of this
side of Macclesfield and what is currently peaceful countryside. The proposed new road would
simply create more traffic and air pollution. This proposal has been examined before by official
inquiry and rejected. The council are wrong in seeking to reopen this proposal.
This, surely, is also an obvious area to develop. It will provide the funding to complete the SW bypass
for Macclesfield as well as many houses and employment opportunities. I would suggest that the
road is well landscaped into the surroundng countryside and that there is a well defined boundary
between the development and the countryside. This may be the road itself, though there are other
Page 261
solutions.
TI1ere is full acceptance from us that the large Site I in South West Macclesfield is the most logical
location for an urban extension and is fully supported by us as such and with the scale of
development could deliver significant benefits and deliver infrastructure as part of an overall
package and would be fully complementary to the South Macclesfield Development Area (Site H).
That should be the first choice for meeting the foreseeable future needs of Macclesfield. Should
there be a requirement, however, for any other sites for residential development arising, particularly
from any reconsideration of the number of houses to be provided in Macclesfield then Site E would
be best placed in sustainability terms to deliver it. This site has been identified in the Strategic
Housing Land A vail ability Assessment as being one which is suitable for housing development,
though with a policy change, and is available, achievable and developable. The site owners have
reached agreem~nt with a potential housing developer to deliver housing development in the future
on Site E.
Too hilly, roads would need to by greatly improved.
Too many homes proposed, too far from town. On wrong side of town for commuters etc. Too
valuable a piece of countryside
Too many houses! Not enough Jobs to employ people.
Too many houses. No to green belt development.
Totally unsuitable - Green Belt - destroying the visual ammenity - on. there are protected species
such as owls, bats and rare newts living in this area
UNNECESSARY AND UNNATURAL BEARING IN MIND ITS BEAUTY AND ITS VIEWS.
Very pleasant area of countryside
We are the land owners of 12 acres ( os reference sJ8872/9384 with frontage to Pexhill Rd. We
support the development of this site which has few constrains and could be delivered easliy.
We do strongly object to the development of a road between Congleton Road and Chelford Road.
The development would be both extensive and cut across Green Belt including the Site of Biological
Importance at Cock Wood. The document does not contain convincing evidence (including traffic
volume and flow) as to the need for a new road. This is appears to be a resurrection of a previous
proposal in 1995 to which the Henbury Society strongly objected and the proposal failed following a
Public Enquiry. From the diagram it is unclear where the proposed road would meet the A537 or
where the housing in J would be. Because of the SBI It would seem that a road route would have to
be east or west of this, either of which would affect existing housing. Whilst the specific area in J is
not clear, in this context we would draw your attention to the Henbury Parish Plan 2011 (of which
Cheshire East will have a copy) which states: œAmongst the residents of the Parish there is
overwhelming support (96%) for: - The retention and protection of the Green Belt - The retention of
the physical break (in the form of open land) between Henbury and Broken Cross. This is felt to be of
particular importance in order to preserve the village nature of Henbury. This is consistent with the
purposes of the Green Belt as shown in the Glossary: - Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up
areas - Safeguard the countryside from encroachment.
We recognise that the Town Strategy does not constitute any planning proposals but in section 6.11
at 111" and 11J" we would be making very strong objections should any proposals to implement
these options be forthcoming. The proposal referred to in 111" is wholly dependent upon the
infrastructure requirement //Completion of a South West Macclesfield link Road {Congleton Road to
Chelford Road) actually being delivered". You must be fully aware that these road and housing
developments have been proposed in the past and were the subject of a public enquiry in 1995, the
Planning Inspector subsequently finding in favour of the Parish Council and the Henbury Society as
objectors to the proposals.We would also stress that the development of the link road would
Page 262
inevitably, at its intersection with the A 537, lead to an end to the physical break between Henbury
and Broken Cross thus destroying the village nature of Hen bury. Amongst other considerations the
objections showed that the proposed link road and housing development in the South West area
would increase traffic on the A537 to a level that the road was never designed to accommodate and
then, as now in the strategy, there are no proposals to upgrade to meet that requirement. It must be
recognised that any suggested restructuring of that road would inevitably encroach further on
existing Green Belt land. We also direct your attention to the statement that the Local Plan will
safeguard the countryside by focusing development to the towns and larger villages. The
Macclesfield Town Strategy as presently drafted clearly conflicts with the stated objectives of the
Cheshire Local Plan in as much as Henbury is not a larger village but may be the subject of significant
housing etc development so as to destroy the surrounding countryside and the existing village in its
wake. We note the Strategy for Economic Prosperity duplicates the statement "safeguard and
improve existing viable employment areas in the town". We also note in the Strategy for Housing the
inclusion of the suggested number of houses required to satisfy demand, which incidentally is not a
strategy but an action to achieve the same, and recommend that this be shown as the number for
which planning consent has already been given but not yet built and the number for which consent
would be required. We consider this information could serve to allay some concerns as to the impact
on land requirements. Finally we note your reference to the Church as a historic building and
assume that this refers to St Michael's Church and not St Georges.
While I do not agree with using a Greenbelt site as I think the housing can be found via other sites
and existing empty housing. If it were necessary site I would enable a development of a purpose
built area that would ensure a well designed neighbourhood with the required infrastructure.
Whilst I disagree with building on Green belt when other options are available, this option could
fulfil nearly all of the committments in the plan (3000 homes).
Will happen with the road
With a capacity of 3500 this could meet the projected demands for the whole town, Development of
this area combined with site H and development of the SW link road should be feasible whilst
maintaining protection for SBIs
Would have little impact on existing properties and with existing availability would probably deliver
the required development potential.
Would impact on my lifestyle as I love the country side & partake in many local activities
Would like to see this area landscaped and retained for wildlife and ancient woodland,
Would meld Henbury into Macclesfield increasing urban sprawl
Yes for industry, maybe for some housing. But NOT for retail of town-centre type -- nursery garden
perhaps.
land in the first instance. You dont need to consider more ˜business uses“ we have loads of business
infrastructure which will support Macclesfield. Make sure you preserve the Site of Biological
Importance.
Page 263
Q3. Site J: Land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road (Housing)
Do you agree or disagree with Potential Development Site J in the draft Macclesfield
Town Strategy?
•
•
Agree
Disagree
Comments: Site J
Comments: Site I
700 dwellings is a part of Macc that already has primary schools and residential properties
established would be good
A small development perhaps but not 700 houses.
Again - much better options available.
Again- encroaching on to green belt.
Again, OK if a fairly small development was planned.
Already experienced builds in recent years I feel further developments would be of too much impact
on local services, as well as loss of wildlife habitat and farmland.
already too built up and local roads cannot sustain extra traffic Just built Jasmine Park and whirley
road is now really busy
Alter nature of Whirley & Henbury villages
Although a smaller development than site I, another 700 dwellings will have implications for loss of
Green Belt and access to Macclesfield
Although this option is on the west of the town, I think it is starting to impinge on the area of
"green" that forms the boundary of the town i.e. outside Broken Cross so, I would only support
development of this option as a last resort.
Although this will provide a good number of houses and has reasonable access it will destroy
Draft Macclesfield Town Strategy Consultation Report: Q3 Site J
Page 264
Greenfield sites
Another rural greenbelt area that has much wildlife that would be affected.
Any large scale development here would create another Tytherington. Basically, it would almost
create another featureless town.
still leave greenspace to boundaries of neighbouring villages
Area J “ land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road “ conflicts with Green Belt function of
maintaining the separate identity of Macclesfield and Henbury. Landscape impact prominent when
viewed from Chelford Road. This option has been considered many times and always rejected.
Area J affects Footpaths Macclesfield 22 and 23 and Henbury 7, 8 and 12 It is noted that Areas B, C,
E, F, G, I and J are all in the Green Belt. There would have to be a strong case for these i.e. no
alternative suitable sites. One of the aims of the Plan is to encourage more people to live in the town
centre but none of the Areas featured are in the centre. Objective 2 (p10) includes ˜improving
connectivity and linkages to and within the town centre. I draw your attention to Step Hill, Footpath
Macclesfield 53, which has been closed for three years awaiting the availability of funds to repair
retaining walls and, at the time of writing, no date has been set for the execution of these repairs.
Area of outstanding natural beauty and significant area for wildlife and enviroment. Will spoil
current residents views, and local residents will suffer financially from loss in value of their
properties. There is no need for the council to spoil this area even if the Developers have already
purchased the land.
as above
As above
As for I
As long as the development is kept to a minimum
As this is close to existing development between Broken Cross and Henbury, it is better suited for
development than the other allocations. However, any development here should only be resorted to
after first considering that in the town centre's core and must be coupled with improved public
transportation into the town centre.
Better areas than this should be used to maintain this area of green belt.
Better for mixed use.
Both I and J would destroy a rich agricultural environment and to urbanize it would be an act of
vandalism. You destroy the heritage of the Cheshire Landscape.
Breen Belt and increase in traffic at broken cross.
But South West Link Road should be extended north/northeastwards to Site C. Retain an open space
east of Henbury reaching 100 to 200 metres east of the EHV electricity line.
Concern on flooding if develop this, as appears to over flood plain at present. Also concerned on
bringing Henbury into the town.
Could stand just a little more housing but not on our Greenbelt.
Damage to the natural environment (as a keen amateur naturalist I know that this is a good area for
moths). Also, pressure on local roads.
Decision based on the provision of the new link road as any increase in housing here would have a
huge effect on the volume of traffic.
DESTROYS THE CHARACTER OF HENBURY VILLAGE
Developing this site would potentially join Henbury to Macclesfield. It is important to maintain
distinct communities and avoid urban sprawl. Green space between the areas is important for both
Macclesfield and Henbury residents. Green Belt land.
Development here would not affect the land gap between the site and the next settlement,
Knutsford.
Page 265
Disagree with location and scale of the proposal. Valued open space for nearby residents.
Macclesfield must not expand to swallow up neighbouring settlements like Henbury (or Prestbury to
the North / Gawsworth to the South). Recent housing development in the adjoining area has
increased pressure on local roads / schools / open space and further development would exceed the
local infrastructure.
Do not destroy this area with development. DO NOT BUILD ON THIS GREEN BELT.
Don't agree with this incursion into the Green Belt. If Sites A, B, C and J are all developed a huge
tract of attractive and useful land will be lost.
Easy access to A537 would be good for those working on this route to Alderley, Wilmslow etc
Farm land. Leave alone.
Feel very strongly about the steady encroachment of the GB land
Fully support the inclusion of Option J “ it is available now, offers a suitable location for development
now, and is achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five
years. It would ensure that new development would be focused on the edge of Macclesfield within
proximity to the Macclesfield Town Centre, would assist in securing a viable future for housing and
would represent a sound and sustainable approach to development of the area through
containment. It would also assist in preventing sporadic encroachment into the open countryside
and wider green belt. It incorporates the provision of a Strategic Gap between Henbury and
Macclesfield to check œunrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and to œprevent neighbouring
towns merging into one another in accordance with para 80 of NPPF.
Good main road access to West & south. This does not impact adversely on existing site of natural
character.
Green belt
Green Belt
Green Belt
Green Belt
Green belt
Green Belt
Green Belt
Green Belt and agricultural land and includes ancient woodland and SBI. Totally unsuitable. SHOULD
BE REJECTED
green belt land
Green belt land - need to keep Henbury separate
Green Belt should remain protected.
Page 266
Greenbelt
Greenbelt land . At the moment Henbury is kept separate from Macc by this greenbelt land adn so
has it's own identity. Filling in the gap will destroy the small village feel (as has already happened to
Whirley). It also sets a precedent and opens up the idea of development to Birtles, Monks Heath,
Chelford...where do you stop?
I am amazed that your plan is considering housing between Broken Cross and Henbury. My principle
reasons for objecting are, firstly the traffic on Chelford Road is bad enough as it is, heaven knows
what it would be like if housing was built. I often have to wait for a few minutes before being able to
exit my driveway in the morning, at non peak time the issue is not one of volume but of speed with a
significant number of people simply not abiding by the 40 mph limit. How many houses are you
suggesting 10/20/100 the plan is so vague to be meaningless as it stands. No reasonable person
could object to a small number of houses that preserve the essential green space between Macc.
and Henbury, but a major development would be a disaster. Secondly there would be a huge loss of
amenity for the area if the fields behind the Chelford Road and Whirley Road were built on. At
present it is the only accessible open space for hundreds of houses, and is well used by walkers
every day. I have never considered myself to be a NIMBY person however it just seems totally unfair
to take away the only patch of green we have at this end of the town, surely there are other pockets
of land in the vicinity that are not criss crossed by pathways and very well used. Accessible green
spaces such as well used fields are rare indeed and worth fighting to preserve. Lastly the essential
separateness Henbury will be lost as it just becomes joined onto Maccesfield,. what indeed is the
point in having so called green belt areas?
need space.
heritage) before looking at building

Macclesfield Full Report of Consultation Findings

Transcription

Similar documents

Plus | Brooklyn Balı Amsterdam hina Whistler Australia

71 The Essex County seat, Tappahannock, is finally coming into its

11`$`#"1 - The Monadnock Shopper News

Building Section

KTAJ KC - July 2016

Pageflex Server [document: D-9A85396E_00001]

Communauté d`Agglomération Roissy Porte de France, Fosses

Click to

Parthenay, the Digital Town nay, the Digital Town : myth or reality

un vagón hermoso - Un Vagon Hermoso