Is anything ever going to be built on the old TA site off chester road? Lets use the space we have first, then look at Greenbelt. With major employers also ditching the area are the housing estimates accurate?
G
graham white
12 years ago
100% against building on this land.
R
Ralf Pfister
12 years ago
Please do NOT include this site in the local plan. Build on brown, not on green!
K
kevin
12 years ago
Featured
why why why build on greenbelt land when there are so many brown sites that could be used.there are so many unsightly derelict site in and around the town..there is the land by tescos the land by the fire station on chester road land by the canal bridge on buxton road to name a few.
P
peter ramsay
12 years ago
Retain green belt status for this land.
R
Rachel
12 years ago
Why, when there are brown field sites in the area, do you need to build here? And why, when low-cost, social housing is needed, do you want to build large, 'executive' homes on this site?
It is essential to preserve this area of countryside. Once it's gone, that's it. Permanently. For reasons of greed and laziness this is seen to be the most appropriate method? When there is so much brown-field available? Really? Reconsider.
L
Lee Dudley
12 years ago
Dear Planners, you'll see here lots of good comments about wildlife, landscape and the environment, however we know that UK Government don't care about this, they have proved this with the destruction of 30+ ancient woodlands for HS2, the anti-lobbying bill and Bio-Diversity Offsetting Proposals (also known as the Trash the Environment Bill). Clearly only economics matters. One petitioner has said that it's about where we live. Making great urban-scapes must include integrated natural green space and the economic outcome is companies think Macc is a great place to invest in, live and work. It is proven Job and business retention is higher where green space is present, public health is better and all these things add up to real economic benefit. The land east of Fence Lane is a green lung reaching in to Macc providing a link with the National Park and north south through the canal and Middlewood Way. The park west of Fence Lane is the start of the link, proposing to build on Fence Lane East is easy and that’s why you propose this space. Proposing to build on West of Fence Lane would never be considered, so why is East valid? Finally no doubt we will be branded as NIMBY's but this is just shallow and cheap. A way to devalue democratic opinion when developers are on the back foot. We care because we have a democratic right to and because we are intelligent enough to look at Macc and know you could achieve these Government housing targets through brownfield development, bettter use of the town centre and the a concerted effort to minimise both commercial and residential vacant properties. THINK before you act, DEMAND evidence of this alleged housing need. CORRECTLY value the economics of this by including knock-on economic effects and non-cost benefits (as defined in any Green Infrastructure study you care to read). WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED MORE GREEN FIELD DEVELOPMENT in Macc. Be intelligent, smart and wise about this and don’t let developers and their resources bro
N
nicola larkins
12 years ago
you need to start listening to what the public want and stop taking what beauty we have left ......
B
Brenda Clarke
12 years ago
The only thing Macclesfield has going for it is the beautiful countryside why on earth would anyone want to build on it.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
I've lived on Hurdsfied all my life & I think its wrong
P
Paul Murphy
12 years ago
Macclesfield resident since 2002
G
Gen Jenkins
12 years ago
There are no exceptional circumstances requiring removal of green belt designation of the land east of fence avenue
S
Simon Ramsay
12 years ago
There are no exceptional circumstances requiring removal of green belt designation of the land east of fence avenue
P
Pat Chapman
12 years ago
Build on brown sites before Green Belt land this is good land & important for our wildlife.
A
Alan Chapman
12 years ago
Please build on Brown sites before
S
Simone Benn
12 years ago
Featured
We as a family enjoy and admire this landscape on a daily basis, please do not destroy the beautiful area in which my children are lucky enough to grow up in. We also do not need any more traffic in the area and the schools are already full enough. Develop brown field sites NOW.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
hands off our shrubberys you nasty cheshire east Crewe types!
K
Kim Darling
12 years ago
I am proud to be a former Kings Girls student - I have been extremely lucky to have enjoyed learning, admiring & playing on this beautiful landscape. I am more than disappointed that Kings have decided to sell the land for housing, and equally upset that the school, which has great heritage and historical connection to the town, is no considering selling all of its buildings and relocating away from the town centre. This would be an utter shame - for the school and for Macclesfield town. Shouldn't the school and town reps be working together here?!?!!
Is anything ever going to be built on the old TA site off chester road? Lets use the space we have first, then look at Greenbelt. With major employers also ditching the area are the housing estimates accurate?
100% against building on this land.
Please do NOT include this site in the local plan. Build on brown, not on green!
why why why build on greenbelt land when there are so many brown sites that could be used.there are so many unsightly derelict site in and around the town..there is the land by tescos the land by the fire station on chester road land by the canal bridge on buxton road to name a few.
Retain green belt status for this land.
Why, when there are brown field sites in the area, do you need to build here? And why, when low-cost, social housing is needed, do you want to build large, 'executive' homes on this site?
[email protected]
It is essential to preserve this area of countryside. Once it's gone, that's it. Permanently. For reasons of greed and laziness this is seen to be the most appropriate method? When there is so much brown-field available? Really? Reconsider.
Dear Planners, you'll see here lots of good comments about wildlife, landscape and the environment, however we know that UK Government don't care about this, they have proved this with the destruction of 30+ ancient woodlands for HS2, the anti-lobbying bill and Bio-Diversity Offsetting Proposals (also known as the Trash the Environment Bill). Clearly only economics matters. One petitioner has said that it's about where we live. Making great urban-scapes must include integrated natural green space and the economic outcome is companies think Macc is a great place to invest in, live and work. It is proven Job and business retention is higher where green space is present, public health is better and all these things add up to real economic benefit. The land east of Fence Lane is a green lung reaching in to Macc providing a link with the National Park and north south through the canal and Middlewood Way. The park west of Fence Lane is the start of the link, proposing to build on Fence Lane East is easy and that’s why you propose this space. Proposing to build on West of Fence Lane would never be considered, so why is East valid? Finally no doubt we will be branded as NIMBY's but this is just shallow and cheap. A way to devalue democratic opinion when developers are on the back foot. We care because we have a democratic right to and because we are intelligent enough to look at Macc and know you could achieve these Government housing targets through brownfield development, bettter use of the town centre and the a concerted effort to minimise both commercial and residential vacant properties. THINK before you act, DEMAND evidence of this alleged housing need. CORRECTLY value the economics of this by including knock-on economic effects and non-cost benefits (as defined in any Green Infrastructure study you care to read). WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT NEED MORE GREEN FIELD DEVELOPMENT in Macc. Be intelligent, smart and wise about this and don’t let developers and their resources bro
you need to start listening to what the public want and stop taking what beauty we have left ......
The only thing Macclesfield has going for it is the beautiful countryside why on earth would anyone want to build on it.
I've lived on Hurdsfied all my life & I think its wrong
Macclesfield resident since 2002
There are no exceptional circumstances requiring removal of green belt designation of the land east of fence avenue
There are no exceptional circumstances requiring removal of green belt designation of the land east of fence avenue
Build on brown sites before Green Belt land this is good land & important for our wildlife.
Please build on Brown sites before
We as a family enjoy and admire this landscape on a daily basis, please do not destroy the beautiful area in which my children are lucky enough to grow up in. We also do not need any more traffic in the area and the schools are already full enough. Develop brown field sites NOW.
hands off our shrubberys you nasty cheshire east Crewe types!
I am proud to be a former Kings Girls student - I have been extremely lucky to have enjoyed learning, admiring & playing on this beautiful landscape. I am more than disappointed that Kings have decided to sell the land for housing, and equally upset that the school, which has great heritage and historical connection to the town, is no considering selling all of its buildings and relocating away from the town centre. This would be an utter shame - for the school and for Macclesfield town. Shouldn't the school and town reps be working together here?!?!!