Macclesfield town councillors have objected to plans that would see the building of 134 houses in Henbury due to concerns raised about "overdevelopment" and environmental damage.

The reserved matters application has been submitted to Cheshire East Council and would see the erection of the homes on land between Chelford Road and Whirley Road.

Bellway Homes already have outline planning permission to build on the site, but the plans have faced significant opposition from residents.

At Friday's meeting of the town council's planning committee, which was held virtually and streamed on YouTube, a member of the public spoke in opposition to the plans.

Richard Slater raised concerns surrounding the loss of peat on the site, which he said goes against national planning guidelines and Cheshire East's Local Plan.

Mr Slater said: "These houses proposed are the wrong type of houses. They're all larger houses and you can see the developer can not sell the current offering they have in Macclesfield."

He added that the plans would lead to "overdevelopment" and were "badly thought through" and the building would lead to the loss of 482 trees of a community woodland with only the replacement of 26.

Mr Slater also raised concerns about what he saw as a shortfall in school places in Macclesfield to support more families in the area.

Cllr Alift Harewood, the chair of the committee, said: "Cheshire East has published that there are enough school places in Cheshire for primary schools and 98% of children got into their chosen school."

She also questioned concerns of overcrowding on public transport and with local care facilities that some fear could arise from the proposed development.

Cllr Harewood said: "I think on a matter of planning, for 134 houses, I cannot support a refusal of this application."

Cllr David Edwardes objected to the plans, saying: "I have a slight interest in this in that when I came back to the UK, I lived opposite the Cock Inn on Chelford Road and I used to walk in those fields.

"I was party to planting all of the trees there, which were only recent and they're going to be decimated. They're offering 26 trees, but we planted hundreds."

He added he could "see all sorts of problems" caused by the removal of peat to the surrounding environment.

On the point of school places, Cllr Edwardes referenced the fact there is currently an application from Tytherington High School for "emergency classrooms" as evidence the town does not have enough resources to support increases in school places.

Cllr Fiona Wilson echoed opposition to the removal of trees: "To remove a significant forest planted by the community and replace it with 26 trees is absolutely against our 'Forest for the Future' policy as a town council."

Cllr Lloyd Roberts said it was his "grave concern" that the developer would "promise the earth" in terms infrastructure and money to support community, but would "take the money and run" once the development is complete.

He added: "The planners are failing and it's almost like a dereliction of duty at times. This would be, in my view, another example of this."

Cllr Janet Jackson said that because the outline application has been approved- despite a previous objection from the town council- it may limit the scope of what matters they could object on.

Cllr Harewood responded to her colleague's concerns, saying: "I would like to balance what was said, against our dire housing shortage. That does not mean we put houses everywhere, but we have a national housing shortage and I am continuously minded of the whole generation who live with no or poor access to housing."

She added: "We must put houses with conditions. I cannot see why if those conditions are met, they cannot be supported."

Councillors backed a proposal by Cllr Wilson to formally object to the development on the following grounds:

II. Increased congestion on already congested roads,

IV. Risk to flooding in the area following the development,