Part of CE distinctiveness comes from its landscape (as well as built heritage). There are areas where outline of medieval farming is still (just) visible. These are prime targets for new development as easy/cheap development on open land attracts builders.
Sensitive re-use of existing buildings can be used to reduce further loss of open countryside and encroachment into heritage sites. developments near heritage sites must be sympathetic to the setting. As with greenbelt, once development impacts on heritage sites it is too late to recover.

The Plan should give full protection to green spaces that are also heritage sites. In Congleton these include Priesty FIelds and the Priesty Trail (Congleton to Astbury). Greater importance shoudl also be given to the smaller features that feature in our streetscape such a red brick walls, iron gates and railings and indutrial heritge to ensure they are not swept away by over zealous developers or homeowners.

The list of heritage assets at para 5.125, although not exhaustive, should usefully include settlements well-known for their heritage, notably Knutsford.
Para 5.126 states: “The new Local Plan will need to balance the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment with the delivery of housing, employment and infrastructure.”
The word “balance” implies different elements being given equal importance, whereas it is more appropriate for the Local Plan needing to weigh the elements cited.
Para 5.127 states: “The Plan is expected to identify and assess both designated and non-designated heritage assets, including their significance, settings, key views and visual relationships, ensuring that development capacity and site allocations reflect heritage sensitivity.”
That should include the identification and assessment of key long-distance views. An example is the view looking south from the north end of Tatton Mere, a SSSI and Ramsar site in Tatton Park.

I am writing as a resident of Bunbury to respond to the Local Plan scoping consultation. I understand this stage is about the scope, evidence base and issues the new Local Plan should address, rather than specific site allocations, and my comments are framed accordingly. However, I also want to draw the council's attention to a specific parcel of land in Bunbury which has already been put forward through the site submissions process, so that its constraints are on record as the evidence base for the plan as it is developed.
1. Protection of Settlement Boundaries and Open Countryside (Section 5: Scope of the new local plan)
I would ask that the new Local Plan retain and strengthen policies that protect defined settlement boundaries and open countryside, consistent with the approach taken in the current Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (Policy PG6) and in adopted Neighbourhood Plans such as the Bunbury Neighbourhood Plan (Policies H1, H2 and ENV4). Villages such as Bunbury rely on a clear, defensible edge to the settlement to maintain their character, and on the protection of the open countryside gaps between them. I would ask that this principle be carried forward as a core part of the new plan's spatial strategy, rather than weakened in the pursuit of housing numbers.
2. Flood Risk and Drainage Evidence Base (Section 4: Baseline information and spatial portrait)
I would ask that the evidence base underpinning the new plan include a more granular assessment of surface water flood risk than generic catchment-level modelling, particularly for smaller, enclosed valleys and depressions that may not show up clearly at a strategic scale but which pose a real flood risk to individual properties. As a specific example, land to the west of the A49, Whitchurch Road, Bunbury (adjoining Holly Mount and Pheasant Hollow) slopes into a small enclosed valley with no natural outflow; any assessment of this land's suitability for development should take this into account.
3. Biodiversity, Hedgerows and Wildflower Meadow Habitat (Section 5: Scope of the new local plan)
I would ask that the new plan's approach to biodiversity net gain and habitat protection give due weight to non-designated but ecologically valuable habitats such as species-rich wildflower hay meadows and mature hedgerow networks, particularly where these adjoin or lie within otherwise protected open countryside. Land west of the A49, Whitchurch Road, Bunbury includes an actively managed wildflower hay meadow bounded by mature hedgerows, which I would ask the council to note as part of the evidence base for this area.
4. Landscape Character and Heritage Setting
I would ask that the plan's approach to landscape character assessment specifically consider open views toward heritage assets, not only the setting of the assets themselves. Land west of the A49, Whitchurch Road, Bunbury forms part of an open, uninterrupted view toward Peckforton Castle (a Grade I listed building) as seen from neighbouring properties. I would ask that this kind of long-distance view be recognised as a landscape and heritage sensitivity in the evidence base for this part of Bunbury.
5. Cumulative Impact of Multiple Submissions in One Location
I understand that several linked sites in this part of Bunbury (land west of the A49/Whitchurch Road, land off College Lane/Vicarage Lane, land east of Wyche Road, and land off Saddlers Wells) have been put forward by the same landowner. I would ask that, when these or similar sites are assessed for potential allocation, the council consider their cumulative impact on the open countryside gap and settlement character, rather than assessing each site in isolation.
Conclusion
I support a Local Plan process that is evidence-led and that continues to protect open countryside, biodiversity, flood-vulnerable land and valued views as part of its core strategy. I would ask that the specific constraints identified above be recorded against land west of the A49, Whitchurch Road, Bunbury as part of the council's evidence base, for consideration if this or similar sites are brought forward for allocation at a later stage of plan-making.

Having reviewed the local plan I have concerns that the edges of the towns are being extended further and further into open countryside with loss of habitats and productive agricultural land. The traditional market towns of Cheshire are losing their character and becoming dormitory areas for larger conurbations. Is it the intention to create large city like areas across the whole of Cheshire East? Some preservation of heritage and tradition is needed as this promotes health and wellbeing. The people occupying the houses on most of these large new build estates are primarily not local and have no connection to the area. They do not use the town centres, and these are dying. Young, local people are not able to afford any of this housing as its are too expensive. Where will all these people be employed? - there are no significant employment opportunities within the towns.
The local infrastructure is already overburdened. Sandbach is frequently gridlock following incidents on the M6 and this congestion frequently spreads to Congleton, Holmes Chapel and Middlewich following a major incident. There were two such events between17th and 22nd of August causing chaos on the local roads and increasing air pollution. I cannot see anything in the local plan which will ensure compliance with the Road Traffic Act 1997 ( as amended) Cheshire East has a duty of care to current residents to ensure that measures are in place to reduce road traffic and curb its use - where are the significant public transport provisions required to fulfil this requirement?
Additionally,, more schools and GP surgeries will be needed - where are these? More children being taken to school will again increase road traffic as it is an acknowledged fact that most children are taken to school by car. This is caused in part by the 'domitory' effect of extending small towns. The residents of new estates do not work locally and need to drop children at school en route to their place of employment necessitating use of a car.

FORMAL REPRESENTATION AND OBJECTION – HENBURY / WHIRLEY / SANDY LANE / BIRTLES ROAD, MACCLESFIELD

Please accept this email as my formal representation to the Cheshire East New Local Plan Scoping Consultation.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt and ensure that my representation is recorded against all relevant Call for Sites submissions affecting land around Henbury, Whirley, Sandy Lane and Birtles Road, including CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those references correspond to the current submitted parcels, together with any overlapping or successor references covering the same land.

My objection

I object to the potential allocation of these areas for substantial residential development on the evidence presently available.
I appreciate that the land shown on the Call for Sites map comprises landowner/developer submissions rather than proposed allocations or planning permissions, and that inclusion on that map confers no additional planning status. Accordingly, my objection at this stage is to these sites progressing towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has demonstrated through comprehensive, transparent and published evidence that they are necessary, suitable, sustainable and deliverable.

I accept that Cheshire East must plan positively for additional housing. My objection is not to properly evidenced housing need. My concern is that the concentration of submitted land around Henbury and Whirley presents a combination of significant constraints which need to be understood before, rather than after, decisions are taken about residential allocation.

These include:
• the documented former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill;
• unresolved historic waste-stream and potential industrial-waste questions;
• potential landfill gas, leachate, contaminated-groundwater and contaminant-migration pathways;
• ecology and protected species;
• Green Belt and settlement separation;
• existing infrastructure capacity;
• roads and transport;
• schools and healthcare;
• electricity, water, sewage and drainage;
• the relationship between housing and future employment;
• landscape and agricultural land;
• the setting of Grade II* Whirley Hall; and
• the cumulative effect of several potential sites being developed together.
1. Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry former landfill

This is one of the most serious concerns.
The existence of the landfill is not speculation.
The Environment Agency public register identifies BROCK LIMITED at Whirley Quarry, Sandy Lane, Whirley, Macclesfield, SK10 4RJ, under environmental permit KP3092CX, as an A05 landfill taking non-biodegradable wastes.
Published records also associate this with the earlier waste-management reference 53470. Even more significantly, Cheshire East's own historic housing-land evidence has previously recognised the landfill constraint in this immediate area. The Council's SHLAA assessment for Land west of Roewoods Farm, Birtles Road – site reference 3312 recorded among the physical constraints: “Located directly on landfill.”
The same assessment identified: “Consultation with Contaminated Land Officer” as part of managing the site's constraints.
This is highly relevant to the assessment of land now being submitted for potential residential development around Sandy Lane, Birtles Road and Whirley. It is not simply a general resident concern about a former tip. Cheshire East's own previous site-assessment evidence has expressly identified landfill as a constraint affecting housing land in this immediate locality.

2. Leachate, groundwater and landfill-gas migration

The question is not whether the boundary of a submitted housing site physically overlaps the mapped boundary of the former landfill. Historic landfill contaminants do not necessarily respect modern ownership or planning boundaries.Depending upon the geology, groundwater conditions and waste deposited, potential pathways can include:
• landfill gas;
• leachate;
• contaminated groundwater;
• contaminated soils and made ground; and
• migration through permeable geological strata.
Before adjoining land is considered suitable for residential allocation, I would invite Cheshire East, its Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team and the Environment Agency, where appropriate, to establish:
• the precise historic landfill boundary;
• the depth and phases of filling;
• the original waste-management licence and subsequent permit documentation;
• the categories of waste authorised;
• what waste was actually received, insofar as historic records allow;
• historic borehole and monitoring-well information;
• soil and made-ground contamination;
• methane and carbon-dioxide monitoring;
• leachate monitoring;
• groundwater levels and groundwater quality;
• groundwater-flow direction;
• whether leachate or contaminated groundwater has ever been detected outside the recorded landfill footprint;
• whether potential migration pathways extend towards adjoining submitted land; and
• how excavation, piling, foundations, de-watering or altered drainage might change those pathways.
I am not able on the evidence I have seen to say that industrial contaminants are presently leaching from the landfill into the proposed housing sites. However, given the documented landfill and the sensitivity of residential development, this needs to be established by evidence before adjoining land is regarded as suitable for housing. The fact that contamination might theoretically be capable of remediation should not be taken as a substitute for understanding the problem before allocation.

3. Historic industrial waste and Ferodo/T&N

There are historical local questions concerning waste associated with Ferodo/T&N, including asbestos-containing friction-product material.
Again I cannot from what I have seen say that Ferodo/T&N asbestos waste has been deposited at Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry. However, the historic landfill is documented, and the precise waste streams deposited there are directly relevant to assessing neighbouring land for residential use. It is therefore incumbent upon Cheshire East and the Environment Agency to examine the original licence, licence variations, operator records, waste records and relevant archives to determine whether they contain references to:
• Ferodo;
• T&N;
• asbestos-containing material;
• friction-product manufacturing waste; or
• other industrial waste.
This question should be resolved from primary evidence and not the invited speculation of residents or developers.

4. The landfill also has significant ecological importance

There is another important dimension to the Sandy Lane Pit. Published Cheshire landscape evidence describes Sandy Lane Pit as a derelict landfill site west of Macclesfield with ponds and terrestrial habitats supporting a large number of amphibians, including great crested newts. Consequently, any assessment of the former landfill and surrounding submitted sites requires consideration of contamination and ecology together. Remediation, drainage changes, road construction, lighting and development of surrounding terrestrial habitats all have the potential to materially affect this ecological network.

5. Ecology across the wider Henbury/Whirley area

The surrounding countryside contains an interconnected network of: mature hedgerows + mature trees + woodland + ponds + grassland + pasture + scrub + field margins.
There are regular local sightings of bats, owls and badgers. Natural England's guidance identifies woodland, scrub and hedgerows as habitats where authorities should consider, in particular, species including bats, breeding birds and badgers, while grassland and pasture can also support bats, badgers, birds and great crested newts. The ecological question therefore cannot simply be “is a protected animal physically present within this particular submitted field?”, the Council needs to understand how the whole habitat network functions.
For example:
• hedgerows and tree lines can be bat commuting routes;
• artificial lighting can disrupt otherwise retained bat corridors;
• pasture can provide owl and other bird feeding habitat;
• badgers use movement and foraging routes extending beyond their setts;
• great crested newts use terrestrial habitat as well as ponds; and
• several developments can collectively sever habitat connectivity even where individual hedges are retained.
Professional ecological surveys should therefore take place at appropriate times of year and early enough to inform site selection and realistic development capacity.

6. How much genuinely new housing land is actually required?

It is essential to distinguish the Government's headline housing requirement from the amount of genuinely additional land which needs to be allocated. Cheshire East's scoping material identifies a new standard-method minimum of approximately 2,530 dwellings per year. Over 15 years, that equates to approximately 37,950 dwellings. However, that does not mean that land for 37,950 completely new homes must automatically be found on previously undeveloped countryside.Before additional Green Belt or greenfield land is considered, Cheshire East should publish a transparent calculation showing:
Total Local Plan housing requirement
LESS
• existing planning permissions expected to deliver during the new Plan period;
• existing allocations expected realistically to deliver;
• developments already under construction;
• suitable brownfield capacity;
• regeneration opportunities;
• under-used urban land;
• appropriate urban-density optimisation;
• a justified windfall allowance; and
• other sustainable sources of supply;
EQUALS
the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
That residual figure is the relevant starting point when deciding whether countryside and Green Belt land needs to be released.

7. Existing housing supply and the difference between land and delivery

Cheshire East's April 2026 Strategic Planning Update reports a deliverable five-year supply of 8,780 dwellings, equivalent to 3.3 years, against a five-year local housing need figure of 13,162 dwellings. The Council also reports that the supply has fallen from 3.8 years because more homes were built than new planning consents were granted during the reporting period. I accept that the 3.3-year position is important.However, a five-year deliverability shortfall is not necessarily the same as there being insufficient land already permitted or allocated. I would invite the Council to publish:
• the number of permitted but unbuilt homes;
• allocated but undeveloped homes;
• actual build-out rates;
• completion and occupation rates on major sites;
• sites excluded from the five-year deliverable supply and the reasons why;
• infrastructure constraints affecting existing sites; and
• evidence demonstrating that allocating additional land would actually increase annual completions.
The distinction between land supply and housing delivery is important.

8. Employment – where will the jobs actually be?

The housing proposals also need to be considered alongside employment. Cheshire East's own scoping evidence states that the existing Local Plan sought at least 380 hectares of employment land between 2010 and 2030 based upon average annual jobs growth of 0.7%.The Council reports that, as at 31 March 2024:
• approximately 375 hectares of employment land remained available;
• more than 112 hectares had been developed since 2010; and
• average annual jobs growth had actually been 1.3%, substantially above the 0.7% assumption.
What this shows is that Cheshire East has experienced employment growth. The important unanswered question for the new Plan is, where will the jobs associated with the next substantial period of housing and population growth actually be located?
For Macclesfield specifically, I would therefore invite the Council to publish:
• forecast additional jobs;
• expected employment sectors;
• where those jobs will be located;
• employment-land requirements;
• the extent to which the existing employment-land supply can accommodate them;
• the relationship between new housing and employment locations; and
• expected commuting patterns.
If substantial housing growth around Macclesfield is not accompanied by corresponding local employment, the Plan should quantify the consequences for commuting, congestion, public transport and car dependency.

9. Infrastructure

The cumulative infrastructure implications also need to be demonstrated before major additional development is allocated.
Schools
I would ask that the Council provide current and forecast primary and secondary capacity, including pupils generated by housing already permitted but not yet occupied. Where new schools or expansion are required, the Council need to identify: location + capacity + cost + funding + delivery body + opening date.
Healthcare
The Council should assess:
• GP capacity and workforce;
• projected additional patients;
• Macclesfield Hospital capacity;
• A&E pressures;
• elective and outpatient demand; and
• funded healthcare mitigation.
Highways.
Cumulative traffic modelling should include Whirley Road, Sandy Lane, Birtles Road, Wrigley Lane and relevant strategic junctions, taking account of committed development as well as potential allocations.
Public transport
The Council should demonstrate whether realistic bus, rail, walking and cycling alternatives exist or whether substantial new housing here would create additional car dependency.
Waste and recycling
The additional population needs to be reflected in refuse-collection and household-recycling capacity.
Electricity
The Council should establish distribution-network and substation headroom, reinforcement requirements, costs and delivery timescales, including increased demand associated with EV charging and electrified heating.
Water and wastewater
The Council needs to establish:
• potable-water headroom;
• foul-sewer capacity;
• wastewater-treatment capacity;
• reinforcement requirements;
• cost;
• funding responsibility; and
• delivery programme.
Drainage
Surface-water drainage should be considered at catchment level, including cumulative hardstanding, downstream impacts and climate-change allowances.

10. Green Belt, settlement separation and landscape

Several individual submitted fields may appear relatively modest when considered separately. Collectively, however, they could constitute a substantial extension of Macclesfield towards Henbury and Whirley.
The Council should therefore assess:
• urban sprawl;
• countryside encroachment;
• physical and visual settlement separation;
• Green Belt purposes;
• landscape character;
• important views;
• public rights of way;
• agricultural land; and
• reasonable brownfield and less environmentally constrained alternatives.
11. Whirley Hall

Whirley Hall is Grade II* listed.
The significance and setting of this highly graded heritage asset, including its relationship with the surrounding rural landscape and important views, should therefore be assessed before development capacity is assumed on surrounding land.

12. Cumulative impact

This is perhaps the central issue. The submitted sites should not be assessed as isolated parcels. The Council must undertake an area-wide assessment combining:
housing + population + jobs + commuting + traffic + schools + healthcare + public transport + waste + electricity + water + sewage + drainage + landfill + industrial waste + contaminated land + landfill gas + leachate + groundwater + bats + owls/birds + badgers + great crested newts + hedgerows + trees + ponds + Green Belt + landscape + heritage + agricultural land.
The interaction between these matters is critical.
For example:
• road access can remove hedgerows;
• artificial lighting can disrupt bat routes;
• drainage changes can affect ponds;
• excavation can alter groundwater pathways;
• development can fragment badger habitat;
• additional traffic can increase wildlife mortality; and
• several individually modest developments can collectively remove the countryside separating settlements.
13. Consultation and notification

I am concerned as to the manner in which this consultation has been communicated to residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites. I appreciate that this is a Local Plan scoping consultation rather than an individual planning application, and I am not suggesting that the usual neighbour-notification requirements for a planning application necessarily apply to this stage. Furthermore I acknowledge that Cheshire East has publicised the consultation online. Nevertheless, I became aware of the scale of the land submitted around our community principally by communicating with other local residents. Given the potentially profound implications of these submissions, I would have expected prominent engagement particularly with residents living immediately around the affected land.
I would invite Cheshire East to explain:
• what targeted steps were taken to inform residents living immediately around concentrations of submitted sites;
• what engagement took place through parish/community organisations;
• how the effectiveness of that engagement was assessed;
• whether additional local engagement will now take place;
• whether an extension to the present consultation has been considered; and
• how residents immediately affected will be proactively notified when individual sites are considered for possible allocation at subsequent stages.
Specifically
I would invite Cheshire East to:
1. Record this email as my formal representation and objection.
2. Cross-reference it to CFS26 590, CFS26 460 and CFS26 557 where those are confirmed as the relevant current references, and any overlapping or successor submissions covering the same land.
3. Treat the former Sandy Lane / Whirley Quarry landfill as a fundamental early site-selection constraint.
4. Obtain and examine Environment Agency permit KP3092CX, the earlier licence/permit records associated with 53470, and the available historic waste records.
5. Refer the affected sites to Cheshire East's Contaminated Land / Environmental Protection team before residential suitability is assumed.
6. Establish whether landfill gas, leachate or contaminated groundwater is present and whether migration pathways could extend into adjoining submitted land.
7. Investigate the Ferodo/T&N and asbestos-containing industrial-waste question from primary records, without assuming either that such disposal has been proven or that it did not occur.
8. Publish a transparent calculation of the residual requirement for genuinely new housing land.
9. Publish permitted-but-unbuilt and allocated-but-unbuilt housing information and explain the causes of the current five-year deliverability shortfall.
10. Publish Macclesfield-area employment forecasts, employment locations and commuting assumptions.
11. Complete cumulative infrastructure-capacity evidence before determining that substantial additional development here is sustainable.
12. Ensure protected-species and habitat-connectivity evidence informs site selection, with properly timed surveys where necessary.
13. Undertake cumulative Green Belt, settlement-separation, landscape, agricultural-land and heritage assessment, including Grade II* Whirley Hall.
14. Assess all the submitted parcels cumulatively with development already permitted or under construction, rather than as isolated fields.
15. Explain what targeted measures were taken to engage residents immediately adjoining these submitted areas and ensure proactive notification at subsequent site-selection/allocation stages.
16. Publish the evidence, scoring and reasons used to progress or reject individual sites.
Conclusion

I recognise Cheshire East's obligation to prepare a sound Local Plan and plan for additional homes.However, the requirement to provide housing does not remove the requirement to demonstrate that the locations selected are sustainable, that reasonable alternatives have been considered and that infrastructure and environmental constraints can satisfactorily be addressed.In the Henbury/Whirley area there is a particularly significant combination of: a documented historic landfill + unresolved historic waste streams + potential contaminant pathways + ecologically important habitat + Green Belt and settlement separation + infrastructure pressures + landscape + agricultural land + heritage.
On the evidence presently available, I object to the potential residential allocation of these sites. They should not progress towards residential allocation unless and until Cheshire East has completed and published the evidence necessary to demonstrate that these constraints can satisfactorily be addressed and that development here is preferable to reasonable, more sustainable alternatives.
Please acknowledge receipt and confirm:
1. that my email has been formally recorded;
2. the site references against which they have been registered;
3. that the landfill/contamination matters will be referred to the appropriate Environmental Protection / Contaminated Land officers; and
4. that I will be notified of subsequent consultation stages affecting these sites.

Good Morning,

Please find attached Knutsford Town Council’s response to this consultation.

Kind Regards,

Please find attached Rainow Parish Councils comments on the Cheshire East Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

Dear Cheshire East Council,
Hornbeam House
Crewe Business Park
Electra Way
Crewe
Cheshire
CW1 6GJ
T 0300 060 3900
PLANNING CONSULTATION: CHESHIRE EAST LOCAL PLAN SCOPING CONSULTATION
Thank you for your consultation on the above dated and received by Natural England on 21 July
2026.
Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the
natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future
generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.
We provide the below advice on matters that we would expect to be addressed within the emerging
Local Plan. In addition, the following annexes are appended to this response:
• Annex A: Natural England’s standard advice for air quality impacts for Local Plans, which
also includes policy advice. Natural England no longer provides bespoke advice on air
quality impacts.
• Annex B: Natural England’s recommendations of sources of local plan evidence on the
natural environment.
SCOPE OF THE NEW LOCAL PLAN
Creating a vision and objectives
Natural England advises that the Plan’s vision and objectives should address impacts on and
opportunities for the natural environment and set out the environmental ambition for the plan area.
The plan should take a strategic approach to the protection and enhancement of the natural
environment, including providing a net gain for biodiversity, considering opportunities to enhance
and improve connectivity.
Planning for growth
Identifying and assessing sites
Natural England requests full consideration of the natural environment in the process of selecting
and assessing sites for allocation through the Local Plan. Development allocations should be
screened and assessed in the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations
Assessment (HRA) to determine their impact on the natural environment, including designated sites.
Any mitigation measures identified through the SEA or HRA as necessary to avoid potential impacts
on the natural environment should be embedded as requirements within site-specific policies in the Local Plan.
Green Belt
Plan policies and proposals should positively enhance land within the Green Belt. This should
include compensatory improvements to environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green
Belt where land is removed from the Green Belt.
Green Belt land can often be degraded ‘urban fringe’ landscapes. Therefore, there will be
opportunities to ‘green’ the Green Belt and deliver environmental benefits such as landscape
enhancement, habitat creation and enhancement, and improved access to nature.
Spatial distribution
In setting an overall strategy to guide development and allocate land the Local Plan should:
• conserve and enhance the natural environment, including landscapes and green
infrastructure;
• make as much use as possible of previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land;
• allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value.
It should be recognised that some previously developed land is important for biodiversity as it can
contain open mosaic habitats (dataset), a priority habitat.
Transport and infrastructure
The Plan should recognise the role that transport networks, and their associated green
infrastructure, can play in providing valuable ecosystem services that assist in the management of,
and adaptation to, climate change e.g. carbon storage, drainage and water conservation, and
cooling urban heat islands. Natural England’s work on the Green Transport Corridors project with
Network Rail, Highways England, Wildlife Trusts and Nature Improvement Areas, builds on the
Government’s Natural Environment White Paper commitment to work with transport bodies to
enhance ecological connectivity on transport networks.
Natural environment
Designated sites
The Plan should include policies and proposals to protect and enhance biodiversity, including
designated nature conservation sites (internationally, nationally and locally designated sites of
importance for biodiversity1). Natural England advises that all relevant designated sites should be
included on the proposals map for the area so they can be clearly identified in the context of
proposed development allocations and policies for development. Designated sites should be
protected and, where possible, enhanced.
The Local Plan should be screened under Regulation 105 of the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) at an early stage so that outcomes of the assessment can
inform key decision making on strategic options and development sites. It may be necessary to
outline avoidance and/or mitigation measures at the plan level, which will usually need to be
considered as part of an Appropriate Assessment, including a clear direction for project level HRA
work to ensure no adverse effect on the integrity of internationally designated sites. It may also be
necessary for plans to provide policies for strategic or cross boundary approaches, particularly in
areas where designated sites cover more than one Local Planning Authority boundary. The direct and indirect impacts of proposed development to designated sites should be considered,
including impacts on water quality and supply to hydrologically sensitive designated sites (see
PPG). Cheshire East features a network of water sensitive meres and mosses including Rostherne
Mere and the Midlands Meres and Mosses Ramsar sites, as well as multiple standalone SSSIs, so
the importance and sensitivity of these sites should be reflected in the Local Plan.
The Plan should make explicit reference to geological conservation (including protection for
geological SSSIs and local geological sites) and the need to conserve, interpret and manage
geological sites and features in the wider environment.
Criteria-based policies to guide development should include application of the mitigation hierarchy2
and how the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of development on designated sites will be
addressed.
Further information on designated sites is at Designated Sites View. Natural England’s Impact Risk
Zones (IRZs) on MAGIC maps (user guide) identify potential development impacts.
Habitats and species
Where a plan area contains irreplaceable habitats, such as ancient woodland, ancient and veteran
trees, there should be appropriate policies to ensure their protection. Natural England and the
Forestry Commission have produced standing advice on ancient woodland, ancient and veteran
trees. The Plan should also protect and enhance priority habitats and species. Details can be found
on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website, standing advice for protected species and on
MAGIC maps.
The Cheshire and Warrington Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) also identifies a set of
priority species and species assemblages that have been identified as locally important and in need
of additional conservation effort. The LNRS sets out a suite of potential measures to address the
needs of these species, and the Local Plan should take account of these priorities and measures as
per the LNRS as a whole.
Biodiversity net gain
The Plan should identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity.
This should include setting a percentage target level of provision of at least 10% net gain, higher
targets should be supported by evidence. The Plan should also set out the Biodiversity Net Gain
(BNG) strategy including:
• requirements for on-site and off-site provision
• identifying priority opportunities of strategic significance using the Cheshire and Warrington
LNRS (further information below under the ‘nature recovery’ heading)
• advising on the metric to use to calculate gains, for example the most up to date version of
Defra’s Biodiversity Metric.
The Plan should also aim to achieve wider environmental gains, going beyond BNG, to include
wider natural capital benefits such as improved water and air quality and recreation. Natural
England’s Environment Benefits from Nature tool can help identify opportunities.
Hydrology
Natural England expects the Plan to consider the strategic impacts on water quality and water
resources and to address flood risk management. The Local Plan should be based on an up-to-date
evidence base on the water environment and as such the relevant River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) should inform the development proposed in the Local Plan. RBMPs (available here)
implement the EU Water Framework Directive and outline the main issues for the water
environment and the actions needed to tackle them. Local Planning Authorities must, in exercising
their functions, have regard to these plans. It is worth noting that RBMPs are in the process of being
updated by the Environment Agency (EA), and the EA also have a wealth of more up-to-date data
available here: Water Data Explorer.
The Local Plan should contain policies which protect habitats from water related impacts, including
nutrient mitigation, and where appropriate seek enhancement. Priority for enhancements should be
focussed on internationally designated sites, SSSIs and local sites which contribute to a wider
ecological network.
Nutrient pollution is a significant problem for our freshwater habitats and estuaries, adversely
affecting water quality. Ensuring that our rivers and protected sites are clean, healthy and resilient is
critical to meeting the Government’s ground-breaking 25 Year Environment Plan which underpins
the shared ambition to leave the environment in a better state for future generations. As part of the
background information to water quality, Natural England would expect consideration of nutrient
neutrality.
New overnight development located within the nutrient neutrality catchment (as defined by Natural
England) must demonstrate how it will address the impacts of potential nutrient loading through a
HRA and include a nutrient budget calculator and mitigation strategy where necessary. The
Rostherne nutrient neutrality evidence pack is available here: Rostherne Mere Ramsar - Evidence
Pack - TIN203, and for Wybunbury Moss here: West Midland Mosses Special Area of Conservation - Evidence Pack - TIN206.
Policies should address water use, promoting the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and
water sensitive design as part of a wider green and blue infrastructure approach. Where there is
known water constraint, policies should manage available resources, such as through water
efficiency or water reuse measures.
The Local Plan should have regard to relevant Diffuse Water Pollution Plans (DWPPs) for
internationally and nationally designated sites of importance for biodiversity, including the DWPP for
Wybunbury Moss.
Peat
Based on the England Peat Status GHG and C Storage dataset, Cheshire East has over 2,250
hectares of deep peat within its boundary. It is important that this is protected from development
through planning policy. Development on peat results in the permanent loss of an irreplaceable
resource, including vast quantities of carbon stored in these soils, whether through extraction or
surface sealing. Such loss cannot be effectively mitigated. Natural England does not support the
principle of development on deep, restorable peat.
We strongly encourage that the Local Plan includes adequate protection to the authority’s peat
resources from extraction and harmful development. It should define deep, restorable peat as peat
soils of 30cm or more in depth where it occurs at or near the surface and is not overlain by a
substantial layer of made ground or other mineral material, and by explicitly stating that
development in these areas will not be permitted. It may also be beneficial to clarify that shallow
peat refers to peat soils less than 30cm in depth. These soils remain an important carbon store and
can be highly sensitive to disturbance.
It would be helpful if policies and supporting text should set out clear planning application
requirements in areas where deep peat may be present. The England Peat Status Greenhouse
Gas and Carbon Storage can be used as an initial screening tool to identify potential areas of deep
peat. Natural England advises that this dataset should inform decisions on whether more detailed
ground investigations are required. You could consider including this dataset in the assets map.
Additional sources of evidence include the British Geological Survey maps portal and existing borehole data from the British Geological Survey.
We note from the map of call for sites submissions that there are a number of submitted sites on
deep peat, based on the England Peat Status GHG and C Storage dataset. Multiple of these sites
appear to be situated on areas of deep peat which are connected to internationally and nationally
designated sites. In line with our advice outlined above, Natural England does not support the
principle of development on deep, restorable peat and recommend strong consideration is given to
peat when determining which sites to take forward.
Consideration should be given not only to avoiding development on areas of deep peat, but also to
the potential impacts of development on the wider peat mass, ensuring that the location of proposed
allocations does not hinder the delivery of the objectives of the Lindow Moss Landscape Partnership
Project (The Lindow Moss Landscape Partnership - Cheshire Local Nature Partnership).
The Cheshire and Warrington LNRS identified peatland as a key priority habitat to be restored
across the county, and included specific measures related peatland restoration:
• P1.1 Where possible, peatland habitat should be restored. Where development is proposed,
it should not create harm, which cannot be mitigated.
• P1.2 Improve the condition and functioning of upland peatlands through appropriate
measures to re-wet habitats, to revegetate bare peat, to establish appropriate vegetation,
and to stabilise areas of erosion, reducing carbon emissions and creating conditions for
future peat formation, carbon sequestration and improved natural flood management.
• P1.3 Increase lowland raised bog restoration.
• P1.4 Enhance and restore blanket bog plant diversity.
• P1.5 Develop opportunities for local businesses to invest in peat restoration.
The Cheshire East Local Plan has the potential to contribute to all of these peatland-focused LNRS
measures, however measure P1.1 will be of particular relevance to the Plan. It highlights that
peatlands should be restored wherever possible and development should avoid damaging or
destroying this irreplaceable resource.
Green and blue infrastructure
Green infrastructure (GI) refers to the living network of green spaces, water and other environmental
features in both urban and rural areas. It is often used in an urban context to provide multiple
benefits including space for recreation, access to nature, flood storage and urban cooling to support
climate change mitigation, food production, wildlife habitats and health and wellbeing improvements
provided by trees, rights of way, parks, gardens, road verges, allotments, cemeteries, woodlands,
rivers and wetlands. GI is also relevant in a rural context, where it might additionally refer to the use
of farmland, woodland, wetlands or other natural features to provide services such as flood
protection, carbon storage or water purification.
Natural England advise any GI is designed and delivered in alignment with Natural England’s Green
Infrastructure Framework (GIF). The GIF was launched in January 2023 to aid local authorities and
developers in embedding GI into local planning policy and new development with a view of further
integrating the Lawton Principle of bigger, better and more connected ecological networks. The GIF
includes, but is not limited to, five key components:
• GI Principles – the why, what and how principles developed to underpin the GIF;
• GI Standards – guidance on national standards for GI quantity and quality:
S1: Green Infrastructure Strategy Standard
S2: Accessible Greenspace Standard
S3: Urban Nature Recovery Standard
S4: Urban Greening Factor (UGF) Standard
S5: Urban Tree Canopy Cover Standard;
• GI Mapping Toolkit – mapped environmental, socio-economic datasets to support the
standards and identification of priority and opportunity areas;
• GI Planning and Design Guide 2023 – a practical, evidence-based advice booklet on how to
design good quality GI;
• GI Process Journeys – a set of guides on how to apply the above components in practice
including a Process Journey for Developers and Design Teams.
The December 2025 draft NPPF makes explicit reference to Natural England’s GI standards in
policies GB8, HC1, HC3 and N1. As such, we strongly encourage Cheshire East’s Local Plan to set
standards for GI provision in line with the GIF, tailoring these as necessary to local circumstances
and evidence.
Natural England encourages Cheshire East to include an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) standard
within local planning policy. Local authorities elsewhere in England have introduced an UGF via
policy, strategy or supplementary planning documents requiring new development proposals
to demonstrate the highest feasible levels of greening and include an UGF calculation; see UGF
Case Studies for further information. The introduction of a UGF would provide a mechanism to
increase urban biodiversity where development may be exempt from BNG requirements because of
zero scores within metric calculations. We refer you to the Urban Greening Factor User Guide and
would be happy to support in the development of a UGF.
Also, the Plan can make use of data available through Natural England’s GI Map as part of the
baseline. Natural England has launched two new mapping tools on the database to map health
inequality and environmental pressures: the Environmental Equity Index (EEI) and the Index of
Multiple Environmental Deprivation (IMED). Further details on the EEI and IMED can be found here.
Nature recovery
Natural England welcomes reference to the Cheshire and Warrington Local Nature Recovery
Strategy (LNRS) in the listed plans and strategies to help inform the local plan, and we highlight the
statutory duty of Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to take the LNRS into account in plan-making.
LPAs are required under the Gateway 1 approach to consider vision and objectives as well as
prepare for SEA. The LNRS can be used to inform these processes and ensure LPAs take account
of biodiversity and nature recovery, including the wider social and economic benefits of those
opportunities.
The priorities for nature recovery and associated mapped and unmapped measures can provide
evidence to justify a variety of policy approaches in a local plan, including, but not limited to, open
space, natural health, GI and transport, as well as environmental policies. LNRSs contain delivery
guidance for a wide range of audiences, including designers and developers. Unmapped
measures are deliverable across the LNRS area wherever relevant to existing or proposed habitat.
Policy links occur between LNRS and BNG, particularly because, in line with the Statutory
Biodiversity Metric Guidance, the LNRS is the sole indicator of Strategic Significance uplift within the
statutory BNG metric. As such, it provides a valuable tool for informing BNG requirements for new
development, offering a 1.15 uplift in biodiversity value where proposals deliver actions mapped in
the LNRS.
Where monitoring of the emerging Local Plan is proposed it would be useful to include opportunities
to capture nature recovery achievements as a result of the Plan, using the LNRS as a baseline.
Responsible authorities leading on LNRSs are now required by Defra to monitor and report on the
delivery of nature recovery actions across their LNRS area as part of their statutory delivery role.
Aligning Local Plan monitoring with nature recovery objectives would generate valuable data and
evidence, supporting responsible authorities in meeting these reporting requirements while also
demonstrating the Plan’s contribution to wider environmental outcomes.
The priorities and measures in an LNRS (both mapped and unmapped) can steer appraisal /
assessment and policy development to ensure that opportunities for nature recovery and naturedevelopment and land use change are embedded in economic and social policies as well as
decision making.
The Local Plan should also refer to the Bollin to Mersey Nature Recovery Partnership (NRP), one of
twelve Nature Recovery Projects across England. These multi-partnership projects are designed to
fast-track nature recovery by working collaboratively to create and restore wildlife-rich habitats,
corridors and stepping-stones to help wildlife populations to move around freely. Cheshire East
Council, alongside Defra bodies and neighbouring authorities in southern Greater Manchester, sit
on the NRP ‘core partners’ group, and have been able to shape the NRP vision and priorities. The
Bollin to Mersey NRP aims to transform the natural landscape of northern Cheshire and southern
Greater Manchester, which was drained over centuries for agriculture and urban development, into
a connected network of water, wetland and woodland habitats bringing nature closer to where
people live, work and play. The Local Plan should consider the NRP and how it could contribute to
achieving this vision for the landscape.
Agricultural land and soils
The Plan should contain policies to protect Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades
1, 2, 3a). Polices should avoid the loss of BMV land. The Plan should recognise that development
has an irreversible adverse impact on the finite national stock of BMV land. Any development
proposed on BMV land should be informed by a detailed soil survey.
The Plan should have a policy for the protection of and sustainable management of soils on
development sites. This should set out mitigation measures to minimise soil disturbance and retain
as many ecosystem services as possible through careful soil management during the construction
process and appropriate soil re-use. The Plan should recognise that development (soil sealing) has
a major and usually irreversible adverse impact on soils. The impact of all types of development on
soils should be considered.
Healthy soils are not only important for agriculture, but soils with high environmental value (e.g.
wetland carbon stores such as peatland and low nutrient soils) are also important to ecological
connectivity. Development should be supported by soils surveys and management plans - see
Defra’s Code of Practice for the sustainable use of soils on construction sites.
Landscape
The plan area is next to the Peak District National Park, and we advise that you take into account
the relevant Management Plan for the landscape. Development proposals brought forward through
the plan should avoid significant impacts on protected landscapes, including those outside the
plan’s area.
The Plan should include policies and proposals for conserving and enhancing the landscape. It
should identify, protect and enhance locally valued landscapes, informed by landscape character
assessments. Policies for development in or adjacent to rural areas and urban fringe should ensure
they reflect the character of the countryside, as well as seeking opportunities for enhancement and
improved access to nature.
The Plan should include policy wording to reduce light pollution. Lighting can be harmful to wildlife
and undermine enjoyment of the countryside or night sky, especially in intrinsically dark landscapes,
such as protected landscapes and nature reserves. Where appropriate, the Plan should identify
areas of tranquillity and include policy wording to protect them.
Health and wellbeing
Health and Health Inequalities
Spending time in green and blue spaces has been shown to encourage physical activity and promote better mental health and wellbeing. Such spaces create opportunities for recreation,
community gatherings, connecting with nature, and social interaction. For more information, see
Natural England’s Review of Nature Exposure and Human Health and Wellbeing, the Natural and
Sustainable Environments chapter of Spatial Planning for Health, and The Nature Connection
Handbook.
The Environmental Improvement Plan set a commitment that everyone should live within 15
minutes’ walk of a green or blue space. An analysis of accessible green space in England is
available through Natural England’s Mapping Database. The potential to set local standards for the
provision of open spaces can utilise Natural England’s Accessible Greenspace Standard to help
determine the size, proximity, capacity and quality of the GI needed to provide everyone with access
to a variety of quality green and blue spaces close to their home.
Active Travel
Embedding GI into walking and cycling routes can encourage the uptake of active travel, supporting
increased physical activity, improved air quality and the reduction in vehicular traffic. Creating green
corridors assists with urban cooling and increases people's opportunities to connect with nature. For
more information we refer you to page 76 of the Natural England Green Infrastructure Planning and
Design Guide and The Healthy Streets approach.
Policies should provide for better connections and address unequal access to nature to support
health and wellbeing outcomes. The design of new or improved routes should consider a range of
modes of access including walking and cycling, as well as a range of users including children and
older people, different socio-economic groups and people with disabilities. Natural England advise
that the Plan should ensure protection and enhancement of public rights of way.
Climate Change
Tree-lined streets provide shade and reduces urban heat islands, making it safer and more
comfortable for everyone to be outside, particularly groups that are vulnerable to extreme heat (like
children, older people and people with disabilities). The Local Plan could set targets to increase
urban tree canopy cover in line with Natural England’s Urban Tree Canopy Standard.
Climate Change Adaptation
The Plan should recognise that climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity loss are
interlinked. Many habitats provide essential ecosystem services to allow adaptation to climate
change e.g. natural flood management, as well as mitigation e.g. through tree planting and retaining
peat as a carbon store. Policies should set out appropriate nature-based solutions for climate
mitigation and adaptation such as woodland or wetland creation.
Consideration also needs to be given to the likely impacts of climate change on protected sites,
habitats and species. See the Climate Change Adaptation Manual, Carbon Storage and
Sequestration by Habitat and National biodiversity climate change vulnerability model.
Renewable and Low Carbon Energy
Should the Local Plan identify locations and/or include a policy guiding wind, solar or other low
carbon energy generation, consideration should be given to the impact of proposals (individually
and cumulatively) on protected landscapes, nature conservation sites and soils (including areas of
shallow and deep peat).
Heritage
Heritage assets, whether tangible elements like sites and structures or intangible elements such as
stories and cultural practices, serve as valuable catalysts for social interaction within communities.
Narratives passed down through our cultural heritage provide a foundation for our sense of place and our belonging in society.
Natural and cultural heritage can open up richer access to the outdoors and nearby places of
significance, from ancient woodlands with deep histories to notable geological formations and even
urban environments shaped by vibrant cultural and industrial traditions.
Canal networks, public rights of way and disused railways are examples of historic routes.
Enhancing these heritage corridors can support their long-term preservation and support nature
recovery while strengthening their role in connecting people with nature and promoting active travel.
Local plan evidence base
Natural England would welcome reference to the Cheshire East Green Infrastructure Plan (2019 to
2030) in the list of plans and strategies to help inform the new local plan. We would encourage
Cheshire East Council to consider producing/commissioning an updated green and blue
infrastructure (GBI) strategy, particularly with the existing plan due to become outdated in a few
years.
ADDITIONAL MATTERS
Habitats Regulations Assessment
The Local Plan’s policies and site allocations should be screened in the HRA to determine whether
they will have a likely significant effect (LSE) on internationally designated sites (SACs, SPAs and
Ramsar sites). Those elements of the Plan with potential for LSEs should be taken through to an
Appropriate Assessment (AA) to determine whether there will be an adverse effect on the integrity
of the designated site when mitigation is taken into account.
Where there is LSE alone, these site allocations and/or policies need to be taken to AA alone.
Where there is no LSE alone, these sites need to be assessed in-combination with other plans or
projects, including relevant NSIPs, to establish if, together, they result in an LSE that needs to be
considered at AA. This in-combination assessment of LSE ruled out alone should come before
the AA. 
First, the AA must look at the potentially damaging aspects of each site allocation and/or policy and
the potential effects on the site features and conservation objectives and characterise the impacts in
terms of their likelihood, nature, scale, severity and duration. This assessment needs to include a
consideration of the impacts on:
• The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats and species;
• The abundance and spatial distribution of qualifying species or assemblages;
• The structure of the qualifying habitat, which should not be affected in terms of abundance
and diversity;
• The physical, chemical and biological processes that support the qualifying habitat to ensure
these are not affected.
The AA must then look at any potential mitigation measures, to determine if they can reduce the
likelihood, nature, scale, and duration of the effect to a lower level. The AA should seek mitigation
measures that are capable of implementation and will reduce the impact to the lowest level possible.
Any residual effects after applying mitigation should also be considered alone and in-combination.
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Natural England expect standalone SSSIs (those which do not overlap with internationally
designated sites) to be assessed in the SEA to determine the effects of the Plan’s policies and
allocations. It is also important to highlight that the notified features of a SSSI may differ from those of the overlapping internationally designated site, meaning the HRA may not fully cover the SSSI
assessment, and we expect this to be considered in the SEA. Further information on SSSIs and
their designation can be found on Designated Sites View.
The SEA should also consider the Plan’s impact on other biodiversity assets, including protected
landscapes, peat, priority habitats and species, irreplaceable habitats, ancient woodland and BMV
land. The SEA can also establish how the Plan will enhance the natural environment, for example
through nature restoration, implementation of nature-based solutions, improving access to
greenspace and supporting the delivery of the LNRS.
Nature Towns and Cities
We recommend Cheshire East Council consider taking part in the Nature Towns and Cities
Accreditation scheme as part of your local planning process. The scheme aligns to implementation
of the GI Framework and Standards and is designed to recognise towns and cities that put nature
and GI at the heart of their communities. The accreditation has been co-designed and tested with a
group of local authorities, with input from the voluntary sector, independent experts and government
agencies.
Achievement of accreditation demonstrates that a local authority has a strong commitment to
transforming GI to benefit people, place and nature and is working with communities and other
partners to create greener, healthier, resilient and thriving places. Applications could be for a whole
authority area or a specific town within it.
Why apply for accreditation?
• The process of accreditation is based on a framework that will help you plan how GBI can
deliver across a range of priorities in your place, supporting the process of implementing a
new GBI Strategy as part of your Local Plan process. It will support authorities in evaluating
their current GBI, supported by a self-evaluation tool and to consider links between GBI and
public health, climate resilience, community empowerment and nature recovery and pressing
issues like economic growth, active travel, and youth skills and employment.
• Strengthen your partnerships: The accreditation process supports the building of
partnerships to deliver change, creating a sense of shared direction and building capacity
across a place.
• Get external recognition for your plans to deliver urban landscape-scale change, which will
help you make the case for investment and gain support from partners and the public.
• Secure funding and investment: Accreditation will provide assurance to potential funders and
investors that your place is equipped to deliver ambitious change. This will help to attract
funding and finance from public, private and philanthropic sources.
We would be happy to support Cheshire East if you are interested in pursuing a Nature Towns and
Cities accreditation - please do get in touch if this is of interest to you. Nature Towns and Cities run
a free online monthly call where interested parties can find out more about the accreditation
scheme, please visit Accreditation support series - Nature Towns & Cities to sign up for forthcoming
sessions.
In addition to accreditation, the Nature Towns and Cities programme is supported by a free network
that you can join by entering your email address at the bottom of the website. The network has a
free to access resource library to support planning and delivery for urban nature and green spaces,
featuring case studies, articles and past webinars: Resources Library - Nature Towns & Cities and a
rolling events programme: Events - Nature Towns & Cities.

Dear Cheshire East

Please see attached our letter for your attention. If you need anything further do let us know.

Jennifer and Julian Banks

I have attached Sutton Parish Councils response to the above consultation.

I am writing with regard to the proposal to enable a large number of houses to be built on green belt and agricultural land in the small hamlet of Ashley in Cheshire. I have a local interest - I live in Bowdon about 2 miles away.

It is vital to retain green belt land generally and this area in particular which is the first and last agricultural land and countryside bordering the Manchester conurbation. This has always been farmland/green belt and therefore cannot be built on.

Ashley is currently a small village with no infrastructure or facilities to support additional housing. The current train services are inadequate for anything other than serving a small rural community.

Any such development would adversely impact on the historic Tatton estate - its hedgerows, fields, woodlands and wildlife.

In summary a housing development in the Ashley area would be catastrophic for the immediate vicinity for reasons outlined above and in addition would contribute to even more congestion in the surrounding areas.

It should be rejected out of hand.

Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels Totalling 291.03 Hectares

To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of 291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local Plan allocation.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority of growth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment, services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities, commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
• checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
• safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl, settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.

3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural, flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release opportunity.

4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours in order to accommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.

5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.

6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.

7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting, infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings.

8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.

9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water-management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when assessing the site's deliverability.

10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable location for strategic growth.

11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
• Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
• an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
• inadequate public transport;
• severe highway and bridge constraints;
• Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
• ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
• landscape designations;
• heritage assets and their settings;
• Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
• significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.
A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage and flood-risk constraints.

The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12 parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of 291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local Plan allocation.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority ofgrowth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment, services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities, commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
 checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
 preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
 safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
 preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
 assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl, settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.

3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural, flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release opportunity.

4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours in order toaccommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.

5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.

6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.

7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting, infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings.

8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.

9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water-management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when assessing the site's deliverability.

10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable location for strategic growth.

11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
 Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
 an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
 inadequate public transport;
 severe highway and bridge constraints;
 Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
 ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
 landscape designations;
 heritage assets and their settings;
 Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
 existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
 significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.
A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage and flood-risk constraints.

The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12 parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Formal Representation: Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels Totalling 291.03 Hectares

To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of 291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local Plan allocation.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority ofgrowth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment, services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities, commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
 checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
 preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
 safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
 preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
 assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl, settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.

3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural, flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release opportunity.

4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours in order toaccommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.

5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.

6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.

7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting, infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings.

8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.

9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water-management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when assessing the site's deliverability.

10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable location for strategic growth.

11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
 Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
 an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
 inadequate public transport;
 severe highway and bridge constraints;
 Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
 ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
 landscape designations;
 heritage assets and their settings;
 Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
 existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
 significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.
A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage and flood-risk constraints.

The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12 parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Formal Representation: Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels Totalling 291.03 Hectares
To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council
I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03
hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.
The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of
291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally
inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable
and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local
Plan allocation.
The principal reasons are set out below.
1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural
Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or
established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be
proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority of
growth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment,
services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely
disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or
modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural
community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities,
commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic
population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of
sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the
wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open
countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the
south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
• checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
• safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl,
settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater
Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements
including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to
weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of
progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of
maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.
3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt
land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of
development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant
Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting
development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not
fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It
performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining
the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural,
flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release
opportunity.
4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale
residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It
cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major
new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed
Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which
contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two
hours in order to accommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as
effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a
sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant
pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and
Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in
vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and
heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding
settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that
development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.
5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is
affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints
raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on
the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful
consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.
6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently
open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on
surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI,
which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks
severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on
sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree
sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and
Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.
7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the
Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and
Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local
Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting,
infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally
altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed
buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this
setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these
designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage
policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage
assets and their settings.
8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of
productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b
work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most
Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a
large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against
national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where
significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be
properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural
land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions
of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.
9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface
water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of
impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase
surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within
and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy
SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water
management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when
assessing the site's deliverability.
10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support
development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage
infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially
significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental
considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should
not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable
location for strategic growth.
11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated
through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected
by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
• Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
• an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
• inadequate public transport;
• severe highway and bridge constraints;
• Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
• ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
• landscape designations;
• heritage assets and their settings;
• Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
• significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.
A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and
environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to
an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be
mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable
location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.
Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable,
Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation
within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their
combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage
and flood-risk constraints.
The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural
character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as
important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport
and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation
constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for
strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission
is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12
parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare land submission around
Ashley (12 adjoining sites totalling 291.03 hectares) in the Cheshire East Local Plan / SHELAA.
1. Conflict with Green Belt Policy (North Cheshire Green Belt & 'Wash-Over' Status):
• Wash-Over Green Belt: The parish of Ashley is designated as "wash-over" Green Belt—
the most protective form of rural Green Belt classification.
• Regional Strategic Buffer: Established in the 1950s specifically to prevent urban sprawl,
Ashley forms the crucial narrow green buffer separating South Manchester and Trafford
(Hale, Hale Barns, Altrincham) from villages and towns in Cheshire East (Mobberley,
Knutsford).
• Failure of the National "Grey Belt" Test: Under national policy, Green Belt land can only
be considered for release if it meets the definition of "Grey Belt" (previously developed
brownfield land or land that makes a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes).
Open, working farmland across Ashley fails this test.
• Direct Conflict with Core Green Belt Purposes (NPPF):
o Purpose A (Check Unrestricted Sprawl): Serves as the primary barrier preventing the
Manchester conurbation from expanding southwards.
o Purpose B (Prevent Towns Merging): Building across these 291.03 hectares would
physically merge Greater Manchester settlements with Cheshire villages and
towns.
o Purpose C (Safeguard the Countryside): Protects active, open agricultural land from
suburban encroachment. Protecting this land aligns with national policy to
preserve prime agricultural resources.
2. Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy: Ashley is a small, rural parish with very little public
transport, primary infrastructure, medical facilities, or local employment. Allocating large-scale
development here violates sustainable development principles, which require growth to be
focused on Tier 1 and Tier 2 urban centres.
3. Highways & Safety: The surrounding rural road network, constrained by narrow railway
bridges and single-lane pinch points, cannot safely accommodate thousands of additional vehicle
movements toward the A538 and M56.
4. Inadequate Rail Connections: Ashley train station lacks the service capacity needed for
sustainable transit. It operates on a maximum frequency of just one train per hour in each
direction. Furthermore, with the planned new station at Cheadle progressing (it has planning
permission and is fully funded), prospective service reallocations would reduce Ashley’s service
frequency to a single train every two hours, rendering rail commuting unfeasible for new
residents. In March 2026 Keir Mather MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the
Department for Transport, stated, in Parliament, "The Rail North partnership board is the
decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine
trains, and is one part of the process that needs to take place to enable the service change. It is
now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley
and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be
accommodated.”
5. The land falls directly within flight path operational noise contours and bird-strike hazard
safety zones, making high-density housing unsuitable.
6. Drainage & Utilities: The area lacks deep sewer, grid, and surface water drainage capacity,
presenting high surface-water flood risks to the River Bollin catchment.
7. Loss of High-Grade Agricultural Land (BMV): Independent soil surveys (including HS2 Phase
2b data) confirm the land contains Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV)
agricultural land, which national policy protects for food security.8. Environmental Heritage Harm: Development would cause irreparable harm to the Bollin
Valley and Parklands LLD, Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve,
ancient woodlands, protected species corridors, and the setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings
(including Ashley Hall).
I request that Cheshire East Council formally classify this 291.03-hectare area (12 adjoining sites
totalling 291.93 hectares) as unsuitable and undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment.

Formal Representation: Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels Totalling 291.03 Hectares

To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of 291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local Plan allocation.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority of growth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment, services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities, commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
• checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
• safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl, settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.

3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural, flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release opportunity.

4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours in order to accommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.

5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.

6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.

7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting, infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings.

8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.

9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water-management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when assessing the site's deliverability.

10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable location for strategic growth.

11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
• Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
• an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
• inadequate public transport;
• severe highway and bridge constraints;
• Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
• ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
• landscape designations;
• heritage assets and their settings;
• Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
• significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.
A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage and flood-risk constraints.

The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12 parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Formal Representation: Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels Totalling 291.03 Hectares
To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council
I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-
hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land
Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.
The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total of
291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally
inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that the land is unsuitable, unavailable
and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local
Plan allocation.
The principal reasons are set out below.
1. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire East's Other Settlements and Rural
Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or
established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial strategy recognises that the scale of development should be
proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority of
growth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment,
services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely
disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or
modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural
community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities,
commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic
population increase of this scale.
Directing major growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of
sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the
wider spatial strategy of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open
countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the
south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land as including:
• checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
• preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
• safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
• preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl,
settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater
Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remaining open gap between settlements
including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.This is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to
weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of
progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of
maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.
3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt
land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of
development.
The current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant
Green Belt purposes and whether other protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting
development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not
fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt.
This land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It
performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining
the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Those characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural,
flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release
opportunity.
4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale
residential development.
Rail
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It
cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major
new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed
Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which
contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two
hours in order to accommodate Cheadle services. The debate described the consequence as
effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a
sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly of narrow rural roads, with significant
pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and
Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in
vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
The cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and
heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding
settlements.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the NPPF's requirement that
development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.
5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated with Manchester Airport and is
affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints
raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on
the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful
consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.
6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
The proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently
open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on
surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI,
which forms part of the wider ecological network in the area. Development on this scale risks
severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on
sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree
sparrow and greenfinch.
These impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and
Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.
7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the
Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and
Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local
Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting,
infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally
altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade II listed
buildings, including Ashley Hall. The introduction of large-scale development into this
setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these
designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage
policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage
assets and their settings.
8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of
productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b
work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most
Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a
large and substantially contiguous area of productive farmland.
The permanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against
national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where
significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be
properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural
land.
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions
of the NPPF concerning agricultural land and the effective use of land.
9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-
water problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of
impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase
surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both within
and downstream of the site.
The scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy
SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPF's flood-risk and water-
management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when
assessing the site's deliverability.
10. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support
development of this scale exists or could realistically be provided.
The area does not currently possess the level of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage
infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially
significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN 1, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental
considerations in determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should
not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable
location for strategic growth.
11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated
through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected
by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
• Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
• an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
• inadequate public transport;
• severe highway and bridge constraints;
• Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
• ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
• landscape designations;
• heritage assets and their settings;
• Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
• significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
The cumulative effect is critical.A development of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and
environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to
an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be
mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable
location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.
Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable,
Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation
within the Local Plan review;
3. 4. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their
combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage
and flood-risk constraints.
The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation of Ashley's rural
character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy of Cheshire East as well as
important national planning objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport
and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation
constraints and flood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for
strategic development.
The surrounding residential areas of Bowdon and Hale are already suffering from congested roads
Especially at peak school times. Any development in Ashley would cause more traffic to come into the area
To access local facilities and schools which are lacking in Ashley.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission
is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12
parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Please find below Poynton Town Council’s comments on the key issues regarding the new Cheshire East Local Plan and related issues. The Town Council considers that the scope of the Local Plan (LP) must contain policies that will address the issues below: General Principles: The new Local Plan must: • Deliver only sustainable and infrastructure-led development. • Protect the Green Belt and the character and environment of existing communities. • Ensure that any development is supported by appropriate infrastructure and services. • Recognise constraints such as flood risk and former coal mine workings. • Take account of large developments planned by Stockport Council close to their border with Poynton and Adlington Housing, Employment and Green Belt Poynton Town Council notes that the Government has increased the housing targets for Cheshire East. However, the Town Council believes there should be a clear brownfield-first approach, with previously developed land, vacant buildings and other regeneration sites identified and prioritised before the release of Green Belt land is considered. We note that the Cheshire East Brownfield Land Register is incomplete – for example it does not include the Cheshire East owned site at the former Vernon Infants School. There should not be over-reliance on large-scale development of open land in the Green Belt simply because such sites may appear easier and cheaper to deliver. Assessment of housing sites must also consider the cumulative impact of previous and future development on existing settlements. Large scale residential and commercial developments will increase pressures upon highways, schools, healthcare, public transport, utilities, drainage and other community infrastructure. This must all be considered and resolved before new developments are approved. Allocation of Sites – the new Local Plan should wherever possible retain the existing Green Belt land around Poynton and the neighbouring parts of Adlington. Poynton borders Stockport MBC to the north and west, so much of the Green Belt land is vital for Purpose B of the Green Belt as stated in the NPPF: Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Development Plans in Neighbouring Local Authorities: The new Cheshire East Local Plan should take full account of planned developments just over the county boundary. Poynton borders Stockport MBC to the north and west. Development sites in the Stockport Local Plan directly bordering Poynton to the north, north-west and west include: SMBC Ref. Site name No. houses HOM 2.19 HOM 2.20 HOM 2.37 HOM 2.26 HOM 2.38 HOM 2.14 Jacksons Lane West Jacksons Lane East Norbury Hall / Land off Chester Road (Hazel Grove) Dairyground Farm, Bramhall Chester Road (Woodford) Woodford Garden Village Extension 170 270 300 500 550 545 Total 2,335 Note that the above list excludes speculative development outside the SMBC Local Plan, including 450 houses at Upper Swineseye Farm in eastern Woodford, directly adjacent to the border with Poynton, which is the subject of a current planning application (SMBC ref. DC/098620). Impact of new SMBC Local Plan: Stockport Council’s planned development will reduce significantly the existing gaps between the built-up areas of Poynton and Hazel Grove, Bramhall and Woodford. Whilst Woodford until recently could be regarded as a village, the large-scale development since 2015 has effectively turned it into a town. The current population of Woodford is about 3,000 and planned developments will increase this to at least 5,000. Pressure on Poynton Schools: Stockport Council has failed to provide sufficient primary school places in the new Woodford Garden Village estate (note this is before the building of the planned additional developments of 550 and 545 houses shown in the table above). As a result, some parents moving to Woodford have sent their children to schools in Poynton, increasing pressure on our local primary schools and Poynton High School. Other Stockport parents have used Poynton schools due to the high reputation of Poynton High School. This extra demand must be considered when calculating the number of school places required in Poynton. Infrastructure: the Local Plan should: • Only make land use and development proposals in Poynton which are suitably located and adequately supported by the existing and improved green, social, educational, health, utilities, transport, footpaths and other relevant infrastructure. • In allocating land, ensure all necessary infrastructure improvements are provided in a timely way either directly by the developer as part of the development scheme and/or by securing sufficient financial contributions. • In either case the infrastructure must be in place and functioning before any developments are completed and occupied. • Ensure that, where land is required to deliver or safeguard the longer-term provision of that infrastructure, it is also allocated in the Local Plan. Multiple Developments: The recent Call for Sites has confirmed that development may take place on multiple sites around Poynton and Adlington. These sites must not be assessed separately, the total impact of all development sites on infrastructure must be considered. Developers must not be able to evade their responsibility by claiming that they only have a “small” site when it is effectively part of a larger one. Education and other Public Infrastructure: The possible scale of new developments means that the current practice, of asking developers for section 106 payments and extending existing schools, will not be adequate. The failures of Cheshire East in managing s106 payments are well known. It should be recognised from the start that new schools will be required, and developers must allocate the land required and pay for construction. The same point applies to new medical facilities, parks, recreation areas and other public facilities. Enforcement: There have been incidents in Cheshire East of developers evading their legal duties to provide infrastructure by putting their company into liquidation when all houses have been sold but before infrastructure has been completed. They can then start a new company and repeat this process. This can be dealt with by (a) requiring all company directors to give a personal guarantee of company debts, and (b) requiring an upfront bond drawn on a clearing bank to cover the full cost of all infrastructure requirements. This will also require an effective Planning Enforcement Department and a willingness to pursue delinquent developers which has not previously been evident. A further issue has been Cheshire East’s failure to properly monitor, and control, new developments approved under the 2017 Local Plan. The Town Council was astonished to learn that Cheshire East do not regularly visit new housing estates to ensure that they are built in full accordance with the approved plans. Instead, they wait for complaints from residents and otherwise do no inspections or visits. This is a wholly inadequate practice – Cheshire East staff should visit new estates at least every three months to verify full compliance with all planning conditions and take enforcement action where necessary. This weakness is well known in the “development community.” Design: The Local Plan should ensure that the design of future developments meets the high standards required by national policy and reinforces the distinct character and identity of the town. Houses should be in brick with pitched and tiled roofs. Note that there is no tradition in Poynton of houses more than two floors high and this should be respected where possible. Environment, Biodiversity and Heritage: The new Local Plan should provide strong protection for the Green Belt, open countryside, biodiversity, wildlife corridors, woods, trees, hedgerows, lakes and ponds, waterways and landscapes. Development should achieve measurable environmental improvements with high standards of sustainable biodiversity, drainage, energy efficiency, air quality and climate resilience. Local Green Space: Developments should be separated by open land which will be designated as Local Green Space. Heritage Assets: The Local Plan should identify and describe the value of local (‘non designated’) heritage assets. Public Footpaths: These must be protected and not blocked or diverted by new developments. Footpaths should also not be effectively replaced by new streets. Green Infrastructure: The Local Plan should define a green infrastructure network for Poynton on the Policies Map with the aim of protecting it from harmful development proposals and encouraging development to realise opportunities for its enhancement for local nature recovery and other multi-functional benefits. The Local Plan should recognise the many physical and mental health benefits to residents from green and open land. Green Gaps: Should large developments be proposed which could effectively merge distinct areas of the village, Local Gaps should be defined on the Policies Map with the objective of preventing the visual coalescence of those settlements. Examples may include preventing any coalescence of Hockley with Higher Poynton or Middlewood and retaining a clear and separate identity for the Woodford Road and Mill Hill Hollow areas. Flooding: Poynton (and the neighbouring areas of Adlington) suffered severe floods in 2016 and 2019. Section 19 reports were issued by Cheshire East for both incidents. Many houses and business premises across Poynton were flooded, including part of the Poynton Industrial Estate (in Adlington). The Cheshire East Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2024) includes Poynton as one of fourteen priority areas where flood risk is significant. The SFRA confirms that Poynton is at risk from numerous types of flooding: • Fluvial Flooding from rivers and associated watercourses (Poynton Brook). • Surface water risk – Poynton is identified as at high risk of surface water flooding. • Groundwater flood risk – Poynton and surrounding area form one of the two areas of highest groundwater flood risk in the whole of Cheshire East. • Flood risk from sewers – the SFRA names Poynton as an area where sewer flooding has occurred. Some sewers, for example on Coppice Road, are too narrow for existing levels of discharge and could not accommodate any new developments. • Reservoir flood risk – from the Cheshire East owned ornamental reservoir at Poynton Pool. Cheshire East accept this is a significant risk and are planning significant work to improve the safety of Poynton Pool. However, it is not possible to eliminate this risk. Poynton is the only area in Cheshire East to feature in every category of flood risk in the SFRA. Sites must not be allocated for development if: • The site is in Flood Zones 2 or 3 or at risk from any type of flooding; or • Building on the site could reduce absorption of rainwater or displace flooding downstream where it could inundate existing properties. Flood Management: We note that the SFRA identifies land “South of Poynton” as having “significant potential” for Natural flood management (NFM) or Working with Natural Processes (WwNP). Examples of WwNP in the SFRA include flood plain reconnection (allowing open land to flood in wet weather), Runoff Attenuation Features (temporary storage of flood water) and tree planning. Poynton Town Council would in principle support such schemes, although the exact location and nature of the possible works remain unclear. Such land must be protected from development in the Local Plan. Former Coal Mining Heritage: This raises two issues. The presence in the eastern part of Poynton village and Higher Poynton of numerous old mine shafts and area of shallow coal mine workings is a serious constraint on development, which should be recognised in the Local Plan. The area includes many relics of the coal mining past, including dirt rucks and former colliery railways. While some of the latter are now public footpaths, most of this heritage is unprotected and could be destroyed by inappropriate development. This heritage should be protected in the Local Plan. Public Transport: Most potential development sites in Poynton are at least half a mile from the nearest shops. The existing bus network does not cover all of the town and is under regular threat of withdrawal by Cheshire East. Most journeys from any new developments would be by private car, with increased traffic congestion and air pollution. Poynton Bypass: The whole point of building the A523 Poynton Relief Road (Roy Chadwick way) was as a bypass for Poynton (see the SEMMMS Final Report of 2001). If new accesses are built off it, it will cease to be a bypass and become an ordinary, congested urban road. At the Public Enquiry into the construction of the Poynton Relief Road, a landowner argued for a roundabout to be built to access land off the Bypass. The Inspector refused this request. The Local Plan should state specifically that no additional junctions may be built off the Poynton Bypass. Utilities - Public utilities are under strain in the semi-rural area of Higher Poynton. Local residents experience frequent electricity cuts, while residents of Coppice Road have complained of sewage backing up into their houses, as the existing sewer is too narrow. Both the electricity and sewer infrastructure in Higher Poynton are old and struggle to cope with increased development and the conversion of former commercial or agricultural buildings into housing. The Local Plan should require that, before any development takes place in this area, electrical and sewer infrastructure are fully updated (at the expense of the developer). Conclusions 1. Poynton Town Council notes that Cheshire East need to ensure additional housing and commercial and economic growth. However, growth must be planned, recognise constraints and not just accepted. 2. The new Local Plan should protect the Green Belt, prioritise brownfield and regeneration land, ensure infrastructure of all types is delivered as part of development schemes and fully enforce planning conditions and developer contributions. 3. A development constraint specific to Poynton is the identification of numerous types of flood risk in the Cheshire East Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). No other town or village in Cheshire East is named in every category of flood risk. 4. A further constraint is the presence of numerous large development sites in adjacent areas of Stockport MBC, which risks the effective merging of Poynton with the Stockport towns of Hazel Grove, Bramhall and Woodford as well as increased strain on Poynton’s schools. 5. Town and Parish Councils and local communities should be fully involved in decisions on development and the infrastructure required to support it. No proposal should ever be a “fait accompli.”

I want to object to the 291-hectare land submitted around Ashley. Our village has no services, no buses and a station with just one train an hour, making it impossible to call Ashley “well connected”. Every road into the village crosses a narrow bridge, so any large development would create serious congestion and safety problems. The land is all Green Belt and productive farmland, and the area includes sensitive landscapes, wildlife habitats and listed heritage buildings that would be permanently damaged. This site is completely unsuitable and should be removed from consideration.

Land to the rear of Buxton Old Road (CFS112 / CFS113) also referred to as DS20
Objection to the Inclusion of Land Behind Buxton Old Road (CFS112 / CFS113) in the
Cheshire East Local Plan
I wish to register a strong objection to the inclusion of land behind Buxton Old Road within the
emerging Cheshire East Local Plan. In my view, this site is unsuitable for allocation and should
be removed from further consideration within the Cheshire East Local Plan. The principal
reason for this objection is the substantial, permanent and irreversible harm that development
of this land would cause to the setting of Lyme Park and, in particular, to the iconic views both
to and from The Cage. The Local Plan is intended to establish the vision for future
development in Cheshire East through to the 2040’s and will ultimately guide future site
allocations and planning decisions. It is therefore essential that nationally important heritage
and landscape assets are afforded the highest level of protection from the outset.
Lyme Park Is More Than a Listed Building
Lyme Park is not simply a country house surrounded by attractive countryside. It is one of the
country's most important historic estates, comprising a Grade I listed house together with a
Grade I Registered Park and Garden of Special Historic Interest. The Grade I Registered Park
and Garden designation recognises the importance of the historic landscape as a heritage
asset in its own right. The significance of Lyme Park extends far beyond its buildings and
includes the designed landscape, its wider setting, its relationship with the surrounding
countryside, and the extensive panoramic views that can be experienced from within the park.
The experience of the landscape is fundamental to understanding and appreciating Lyme
Park. The surrounding countryside is not merely a backdrop. It forms part of the significance
of the estate itself and contributes directly to its special character and enduring appeal. One
of the most important locations from which this relationship can be appreciated is The Cage.
The views both to and from The Cage are among the most iconic and widely recognised in
both Cheshire and Derbyshire. Visitors do not come simply to look at a historic building. They
come to experience a historic landscape and its relationship with the wider countryside.
The Proposed Site Occupies a Highly Sensitive Position Within Those Views
A crucial distinction must be made between development that is visible somewhere within the
wider panorama and development that occupies a prominent position within an important view.
It is acknowledged that modern development can already be seen in the far distance from
Lyme Park. However, that development generally sits within the wider landscape and remains
subordinate to the overall rural character of the view. It does not dominate the outlook nor
materially diminish the experience of standing at The Cage and looking out across open
countryside. The land behind Buxton Old Road is fundamentally different. This site occupies
a substantially more prominent and visually influential position within the landscape.
Development here would not simply add further housing to a distant horizon. It would introduce
a significant area of urban development into land that currently forms part of the open
countryside experienced from The Cage and other elevated viewpoints within Lyme Park. The
result would be a fundamental and irreversible change to the character of the view. The issue
is not whether development would be visible. The issue is that development would
permanently transform part of a rural landscape into an urban one.
Permanent and Irreversible Harm
Development of this site would inevitably introduce:
• Residential buildings.
• Roads and associated highway infrastructure.
• Street lighting.
• Vehicle movements.
• Domestic activity.
• Gardens, fences and associated suburban features.
• The cumulative visual effects associated with a modern housing estate.
These changes would permanently alter the character of the landscape and urbanise an area
that currently contributes to the rural setting of Lyme Park. Importantly, this harm cannot
realistically be mitigated. Landscaping may soften some views over time, but it cannot recreate
open countryside. Nor can it restore the historic relationship between Lyme Park and the
surrounding landscape once development has taken place. The Council should therefore
recognise that any harm resulting from the allocation of this site would be permanent and
irreversible.
Harm to the Setting of a Nationally Important Heritage Asset
The open countryside surrounding Lyme Park, and the views both to and from The Cage, are
not incidental to its significance. The setting of a heritage asset contributes to the way in which
it is experienced, understood and appreciated. The sweeping views from The Cage and
towards it across the surrounding landscape form part of what makes Lyme Park special and
are central to the experience enjoyed by countless visitors each year. Development behind
Buxton Old Road would diminish that experience by introducing a significant urban element
into a currently open landscape. The resulting harm would extend beyond visual impact alone.
It would erode the historic relationship between Lyme Park and its wider countryside setting
and reduce the ability of future generations to experience the estate in the way it has
historically been appreciated. Even if any future assessment sought to characterise such harm
as "less than substantial", that would not make it insignificant. Harm to the setting of a Grade
I listed building and Grade I Registered Park and Garden should attract considerable weight
in making decisions regarding the Local Plan. The Council should be extremely cautious about
including development that would diminish the setting of one of the most important historic
landscapes in the region.
Unsuitable for Allocation
The Council should not approach this site on the basis of whether housing can physically be
accommodated. The correct question is whether the site can be developed without causing
unacceptable harm. In this instance, the answer is clearly no. The site's sensitivity arises not
from technical constraints alone but from its landscape and heritage importance. The harm
resulting from development would be inherent to the site's location. No amount of design
refinement, landscaping or screening would alter the fact that it occupies a prominent position
within views from The Cage and contributes to the setting of Lyme Park. For this reason, this
is not merely a site that requires mitigation. It is a site that is unsuitable for allocation.
Need for Robust Assessment
Should the Council continue to consider this site despite these concerns, it should require:
• A detailed Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
• Assessment of views both to and from The Cage and other key viewpoints within Lyme
Park.
• Accurate photomontages showing the likely appearance of development.
• Assessment of visibility during winter months.
• Assessment of the effects of lighting after dark.
• A comprehensive Heritage Impact Assessment considering the setting of both the Grade I
listed house and Grade I Registered Park and Garden.
• Assessment of cumulative impacts alongside existing and proposed development in the
surrounding area.
Without such evidence, the true scale of the harm cannot be properly understood.
Natural Drainage, Groundwater and Ecological Function
In addition to the landscape and heritage concerns set out above, there are also concerns
regarding the site's apparent role in local drainage, groundwater movement and ecological
functioning. The land behind Buxton Old Road appears to contain a natural watercourse
together with areas of persistently wet ground. These characteristics suggest that the site
performs an important function within the local hydrological system, helping to accommodate
surface water, support groundwater recharge and maintain natural drainage patterns. Such
features are often integral to local ecosystems and can provide valuable habitat and foraging
opportunities for wildlife. Wet ground, streams, ditches and associated vegetation frequently
support biodiversity that may not be immediately apparent from strategic site assessments.
Development would inevitably involve significant areas of hard surfacing, building foundations,
roads and other infrastructure. These interventions can alter natural drainage pathways,
interrupt groundwater movement and increase surface water runoff unless carefully managed.
Whilst engineered drainage solutions can sometimes reduce these impacts, they do not
necessarily replicate the natural functions of existing landscapes. Given the apparent
presence of natural drainage features, the Council should require detailed hydrological,
ecological and flood risk assessments before considering the site suitable for allocation. The
interaction between landscape character, biodiversity, groundwater movement and surface
water management should be fully understood before any development strategy is
progressed. Whilst this concern is secondary to the significant heritage and landscape impacts
identified above, it provides a further reason for exercising caution when considering whether
this sensitive site should form part of the future development strategy for Cheshire East.
Green Belt Considerations
Although the site forms part of the Green Belt, my objection is not based solely on Green Belt
designation. The more important issue is the role this land plays in preserving the rural setting
of Lyme Park and maintaining the character of the landscape experienced from The Cage,
along with views towards The Cage from a vast array of viewpoints and the wider landscape.
If Cheshire East Council is considering releasing Green Belt land, it should first demonstrate
why development cannot be directed towards less sensitive locations, including brownfield
opportunities and sites that would not cause comparable harm to nationally important heritage
and landscape assets. The availability of land is not, by itself, a justification for sacrificing an
irreplaceable landscape setting.
The fact that the site lies outside the formal boundary of Lyme Park does not lessen its
importance. The significance and setting of heritage assets do not stop at ownership or
designation boundaries, and the open countryside between the existing built edge of Disley
and Lyme Park forms part of the wider rural landscape in which the estate is experienced and
understood. Development of this site would reduce the extent of undeveloped land separating
the settlement from the historic estate and would contribute to the gradual erosion of the rural
setting that underpins Lyme Park's significance and character.
The Council should also be mindful of the cumulative consequences of successive releases
of countryside around Lyme Park. Whilst any individual allocation may appear limited in
isolation, the incremental extension of urban development towards the estate risks
progressively weakening the historic relationship between Lyme Park and the surrounding
countryside. Lyme Park derives much of its significance from being experienced as a historic
country estate set within a predominantly rural landscape, and the Local Plan should seek to
preserve that relationship rather than permit its gradual urbanisation.
Conclusion
I strongly object to the inclusion of land behind Buxton Old Road within the Cheshire East
Local Plan. This site occupies a highly sensitive position within the setting of Lyme Park and
contributes to important views both to and from The Cage. Whilst existing development can
be seen in the far distance, the proposed site is significantly more prominent within the view
and its development would fundamentally alter the character of the landscape. The resulting
harm would be permanent, irreversible and incapable of meaningful mitigation. It would
diminish the setting of a Grade I listed building and Grade I Registered Park and Garden and
permanently urbanise a landscape that contributes directly to the significance and enjoyment
of Lyme Park. The question for the Local Plan process is not whether houses could physically
be accommodated on this land. The question is whether Cheshire East should knowingly and
permanently damage the setting of one of England's most important historic estates in order
to accommodate development that could be directed elsewhere. The harm from allocation
would outweigh any benefit of identifying this site of development and no compelling
justification has been demonstration for its inclusion in the Local Plan. Accordingly, I request
that Cheshire East Council concludes that the land behind Buxton Old Road is unsuitable for
allocation, removes it from further consideration within the Local Plan process, and affords the
highest level of protection to the setting, views and landscape character that contribute to the
special significance of Lyme Park.

I strongly object to the proposed 291-hectare development across 12 contiguous parcels at
Ashley. This is high-performing Green Belt, not Grey Belt: it prevents urban sprawl, maintains
the vital countryside gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire, and safeguards open,
productive farmland. Ashley is a small rural settlement with limited services, no bus network and
only limited rail; every approach crosses narrow, constrained bridges. A development of this
scale is fundamentally unsustainable and would cause severe traffic, infrastructure and drainage
pressures, while damaging protected landscapes, wildlife habitats and the settings of numerous
listed buildings. The Council should retain Green Belt protection and reject this site entirely.

I strongly object to the proposed 291 hectare development across 12 contiguous parcels at Ashley. This is high-performing Green Belt, not Grey Belt: it prevents urban sprawl, maintains the vital countryside gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire, and safeguards open, productive farmland. Ashley is a small rural settlement with limited services, no bus network and only limited rail; every approach crosses narrow, constrained bridges. A development of this scale is fundamentally unsustainable and would cause severe traffic, infrastructure and drainage pressures, while damaging protected landscapes, wildlife habitats and the settings of numerous listed buildings. The Council should retain Green Belt protection and reject this site entirely.

Please find attached a response to Cheshire East Council’s Scoping Consultation on behalf of Bridgemount Developments.

Please find attached a response to Cheshire East Council’s Scoping Consultation on behalf of Seddon Developments.

Please find attached my personal feedback on the Local Plan Scoping Consultation which is additional to the feedback from Gawsworth Parish Council, which I fully support.

Please see attached WSP's representations on behalf of Seddon Homes Limited in response to Cheshire East's Local Plan Scoping Consultation.

Please accept this response to the Local Plan Scoping Consultation. I am writing as a concerned resident, having lived in Cheshire for most of my life — well over 50 years. I am also deeply concerned about the proposed Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline, which is set to cross much of this borough, and the issues raised in this consultation give yet another reason why it should not go ahead.
Timing of the Consultation
It is very disappointing that the Council has decided to run this consultation to coincide with the school summer holidays. Almost all parish and town councils do not meet for six weeks over this period, and many local community organisations will also have had key members away on holiday at this time. This is suboptimal, to say the least.
The Cheshire East Local Plan is vital to all of us, and this consultation should be planned and run in a way that gets the best information from all residents, to ensure the resulting plan is fit for purpose and looks after our beautiful county for the benefit of its residents, biodiversity, wildlife, character, businesses, food production, and everything else that matters. It should not be done quietly, in a way that simply pushes forward government agendas that are not appropriate for where we live and will cause far more damage than any benefit they bring. The benefits, as I see them, amount to little more than profit for developers .I very much doubt the housing provided will be housing that is genuinely needed in the area, and I see this destroying greenfield land and environments that are totally irreplaceable. Frankly, any government or any council pushing through their own political agendas and sacrificing these areas is being deeply irresponsible, and is failing in its duty to the people, wildlife, and environment it is meant to serve.
Housing Targets
I am very concerned by the proposed 156% increase in housing targets for Cheshire East, particularly bearing in mind the borough's population. I despair at this target. The number of houses built in the borough between 2009 and now has considerably exceeded the housing targets set for that period, and this has not been taken into account in the current housing supply or housing target figures.
Housing for an Ageing Population
The Local Plan also needs to ensure it delivers the right kind of housing, not just qnuantity. Cheshire's population aged 55 and over is increasing, yet many in this demographic are unable to downsize due to a lack of appropriate housing suited to their needs. Nationally, more than 4 million people aged 55 and over are actively seeking to move home but are unable to find a suitable, appropriate alternative (Centre for Ageing Better, "Locked Out: A New Perspective on Older People's Housing Choices," 2023). The Local Plan should include more housing designed for older residents, including residential and nursing homes, rather than focusing solely on general housing numbers that do not reflect what the borough actually needs. I would also ask that the Council produce Supplementary Planning Guidance specifically addressing older people's housing, including residential and nursing homes, to ensure this need is properly planned for rather than left to general housing policy alone.
The Peak Cluster CO2 Pipeline and Housing Deliverability
I am especially concerned that the proposed Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline, running for around 121 miles and crossing much of this borough, has direct implications for the deliverability of the Local Plan itself. The Council's own officers' report to the Corporate Policy Committee (30 April 2026) flagged that the pipeline threatens the deliverability of strategic housing allocations that the current and emerging Local Plan rely on, including around 760 homes at Middlewich (Warmingham Lane phase 2 and Glebe Farm) and Macclesfield sites, including 300 homes at Congleton Road and approximately 95 hectares of safeguarded land in south-west Macclesfield , this at a time when Cheshire East already lacks a five-year housing land supply. This is yet another reason why the Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline should not go ahead.
Delay in Starting the New Local Plan
The Council should have started developing the new Local Plan in December 2024. This delay means there will be an additional eighteen months of speculative housing development, destruction of Green Belt and agricultural land, and further urban sprawl in the borough.
Brownfield Land First
Brownfield land should be used first. Once farmland and habitats are gone, they're gone — they cannot simply be replaced. They are home to precious, often endangered wildlife, and are places it needs to survive.
The new Local Plan needs to be more proactive and ensure that the Council uses all of its available powers to incentivise brownfield development. The Labour government's changes to the planning system have instead incentivised development on open farmland and in the countryside. There are a large number of brownfield sites around Macclesfield that should be prioritised for redevelopment, including through changes to the tax treatment of such development, as well as the use of Cheshire East Council's wider powers. The failure of vision and proactive action regarding the land around the old telephone exchange on Hibel Road in Macclesfield is one example of this. The Council is also a landowner for some of these sites, including the old depot on Hurdsfield Road in Macclesfield, and should and could have been more proactive in developing or facilitating the development of these sites.
Repurposing Town Centre Buildings
The repurposing of buildings in our declining town centres should also be given serious consideration. Reimagining empty and underused buildings for residential use, alongside appropriate amenities, would bring much-needed life and vitality back to these centres. This approach would also benefit CO2 emissions, since repurposing existing buildings uses far less concrete than new-build construction. This is something the Council should very much consider as part of its plan, providing incentives and a clear vision for how it could be achieved. This gesture could become a shining light, leading the way for other councils to follow, for the benefit of all.
Green Belt and "Grey Belt"
Safeguarding countryside from encroachment is one of the key purposes of the Green Belt, and countryside is essential for maintaining connectivity between ecologically valuable areas. Where land clearly performs this connective function, it should not be classified as "grey belt" , it should retain full Green Belt protection. The proposed Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline itself is set to cross significant areas of countryside and Green Belt performing exactly this connective function ,yet another reason why this pipeline should not go ahead.
Urban Sprawl
Urban sprawl should be prevented at all costs, and the Local Plan should include and make clear the substantial evidence base on the negative consequences of urban sprawl, to ensure appropriate protections are maintained and prevent Cheshire East from becoming a suburb of Greater Manchester. This matters not only for the wildlife corridors mentioned above, but also for public health and economic growth.
Environmental Protection and Reversing Biodiversity Loss
Environmental protection and reversing biodiversity loss should be key considerations in decision-making. Irreplaceable habitats should not be destroyed , the term "irreplaceable habitat" is significant because it is used in planning policy to define habitats that cannot be easily recreated, meaning that once destroyed, they are lost for good. These include ancient woodlands, lowland raised bog, and species-rich wildflower grasslands. There is no excuse for their loss. All wildlife sites should be protected, whether designated locally (Local Wildlife Sites) or nationally (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and other areas of high biodiversity value. Protection should extend not just to the site itself but to neighbouring land too, as this acts as a buffer and potential wildlife corridor ,giving wildlife somewhere to go in the event of natural disasters, including wildfires.
The Local Plan should be driven by the good work already done in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. If it isn't, there is a real risk that the biodiversity crisis will worsen, with wildlife simply not having enough space to sustain itself in East Cheshire. This would lead to local extinctions and exacerbate national declines. I don't want East Cheshire to end up as a scattered collection of isolated important sites with no wildlife corridors connecting them , a risk that the 121-mile Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline corridor would make worse, and yet another reason why it should not go ahead.
Natural spaces on the edge of urban areas are valuable for biodiversity, but they are also essential for the recreation and mental wellbeing of residents. They need to be preserved from development.
Carbon Stores and Peatland
Farmland, soils, and habitats act as natural carbon stores, and development should aim to reduce the release of additional CO2 rather than add to it. This didn't happen at Weaver Green, where the resulting emissions have helped fuel climate change. In addition, the disturbance caused by trenching to lay the CO2 pipeline will itself release stored carbon into the atmosphere , an impact that cannot be ignored. Peatland is especially precious, and the pipeline route crosses moorland and other peatland; no development of any kind should be considered on peatland.
Flooding
With the ongoing impact of climate change, avoiding flood risk should be an important factor in site location.
Food Security and Agriculture
Green Belt and prime agricultural land should never be sacrificed for housing, CO2 pipelines, solar panels, or anything else. Food security matters to all of us, and this summer has shown that climate change could threaten food supply sooner than anticipated. Food security is of prime importance, and farms should be given high priority, protected, and certainly not built on.
Heritage and Rural Character
Cheshire's heritage and rural way of life including the contribution its beautiful green character makes to tourism, and the many jobs that support the local economy through dairy farming and agriculture more broadly, as well as the many associated business supporting these sectors, must be respected and protected above all else. This heritage is also directly at risk from the Peak Cluster CO2 pipeline, which threatens to cut through the working farmland and countryside that this way of life depends on . This is yet another reason why this pipeline should not go ahead. Food security, local jobs, and our heritage are the character, heart, and soul of where we live; We are its custodians, and that responsibility must be honoured. Food scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change are all reasons to protect our green spaces. Housing should be built on brownfield sites first, in appropriate numbers and of an appropriate type, certainly not at the scale currently proposed. I am deeply concerned that farming does not appear to be valued by Cheshire East, and this must not be reflected in the Local Plan.

Please find attached a response to Cheshire East Council’s Scoping Consultation on behalf of Clowes Developments North West Limited.