Local plan scoping consultation

To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council
Subject: Formal Objection to SHELAA Land Submission: 291.03-Hectare Area, around Ashley
(12 adjoining sites totalling 291.03 hectares)
Formal Representation
I am writing to formally register my objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-
hectare land submission surrounding Ashley in the Cheshire East Strategic Housing and
Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and Local Plan review (12 adjoining sites
totalling 291.03 hectares).
This site is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic development. Below are the key planning
policy grounds demonstrating why this submission directly conflicts with national and local
planning frameworks.
1. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy & Failure of "Grey Belt" Criteria
• "Wash-Over" Green Belt Designation: The entire parish of Ashley is designated as
"wash-over" Green Belt under Policy PG 3 (Green Belt) of the Cheshire East Local Plan
Strategy (CELPS). This status confers maximum protection to preserve the open, rural
character of settlements surrounded by sensitive countryside.
• Strategic Buffer: Ashley forms the narrowest remaining green buffer between Greater
Manchester (Trafford/Hale/Altrincham) and the towns and villages of Cheshire East
(Mobberley/Knutsford). Development here would directly breach core Green Belt
purposes defined in Paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF)—specifically Purpose (a) to check unrestricted urban sprawl, Purpose (b) to
prevent neighbouring towns from merging, and Purpose (c) to safeguard the countryside
from encroachment.
• Failure of "Grey Belt" Tests: Under revised national planning guidance, Green Belt
land can only be released if it qualifies as "Grey Belt" (previously developed land or land
making a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes). Open, working farmland
across Ashley strongly fulfills Green Belt functions and is further disqualified
under NPPF Footnote 7 due to the presence of statutory environmental, heritage, and
agricultural constraints.
2. Breach of Spatial Strategy & Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy
• Incompatible Settlement Rank: Ashley is classified at the lowest tier of the settlement
hierarchy under CELPS Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy). It lacks the essential
social infrastructure, medical services, primary educational capacity, and local
employment required to support residential growth.
• Conflict with Sustainable Development: Allocating major growth in a rural location
without high-frequency public transport directly contravenes CELPS Policy SD 1
(Sustainable Development in Cheshire East), CELPS Policy SD 2, and NPPF
Chapter 2, which mandate directing development to Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2
Key Service Centres.
3. Severe Highway Safety Risks & Statutory Aviation Safeguarding
• Highway Network Capacity: The rural road network serving Ashley relies on narrow
lanes, single-track bridges, and severe pinch points. The volume of vehicle movements
generated by a 291-hectare site would cause severe cumulative network congestion and
safety hazards, conflicting directly with CELPS Policy CO 1 (Sustainable Travel and
Transport), Policy CO 4, and NPPF Paragraph 115.
• Statutory Airport Safeguarding: The site sits directly beneath operational noise
contours and bird-strike hazard management zones for Manchester Airport. Introducing
high-density housing here conflicts with statutory aerodrome safeguarding protocols
and CELPS Policy SE 12 (Pollution and Land Instability) regarding public safety and
noise exposure.
4. Flood Risk, Drainage & Utility Constraints
• Surface Water & Drainage: The area lacks deep sewer networks, main grid upgrades,
and surface water drainage capacity. Allocating large-scale development would exacerbate
surface water flooding in the River Bollin catchment, violating CELPS Policy SE 13
(Flood Risk and Water Management) and NPPF Chapter 14 (Paragraphs 165–175).
• Infrastructure Deficits: Under CELPS Policy IN 1 (Infrastructure), candidate sites
must demonstrate deliverable utility connections without causing off-site environmental
harm.
5. Unacceptable Loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land
• Food Security & Soil Quality: Soil assessments (including HS2 Phase 2b data) confirm
the site comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural
land. The site comprises a continuous tract of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
rather than isolated parcels, increasing its strategic importance for food production.
• Policy Conflict: National policy (NPPF Paragraph 180) and local strategy (CELPS
Policy SE 2: Efficient Use of Land) explicitly mandate that local authorities protect
high-grade agricultural land for food security and direct development to brownfield or
lower-quality land first.
6. Irreparable Harm to Landscape, Ecology & Historic Assets
• Landscape Protection: The proposal would destroy the setting of the Bollin Valley and
Parklands Local Landscape Designation (LLD) and the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD,
violating CELPS Policy SE 4 (The Landscape).
• Ecological Degradation: Development would sever protected ecological corridors and
threaten sensitive habitats, including Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve/SSSI,
breaching CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and NPPF
Paragraphs 180–185.
• Heritage Impact: The site encompasses the settings of 19 Grade II listed buildings
(including Ashley Hall). Under CELPS Policy SE 7 (The Historic
Environment) and NPPF Chapter 16 (Paragraphs 200–208), great weight must be
given to conserving designated heritage assets and their landscape settings.
Conclusion & Formal Request
This 291.03-hectare submission (12 adjoining sites totalling 291.03 hectares) conflicts with
almost every fundamental constraint metric used in plan-making. It breaches local spatial
strategy, fails national Green Belt policies, lacks basic infrastructure, destroys high-grade
agricultural land, and threatens protected heritage and landscape assets.
I formally request that Cheshire East Council classify these submissions as Unsuitable,
Unavailable, and Undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment and exclude them from any
future Local Plan allocations.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. The area is unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. The area is unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. The area is unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. The area is unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

I formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare, 12-site land submission around Ashley in the SHELAA and Local Plan review. unsuitable for development due to its wash-over Green Belt designation and vital role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. Ashley lacks the infrastructure, sustainable transport and services needed to support growth. Development would create significant highway, airport safeguarding, flooding, drainage and utility concerns, while resulting in the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. It would also cause unacceptable harm to landscape, ecology and heritage assets. I request the sites be classified as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a resident of Cow Lane, Ashley, and wish to formally object to the proposed 291-hectare development surrounding the village. My objection is based both on my personal experience of flooding and on the wider, unacceptable impact this development would have on Ashley.
My property has previously flooded because the existing drainage infrastructure on Cow Lane is hydraulically inadequate. A key part of the local drainage network is a riparian-owned culvert that is simply too small to accommodate any significant additional flow.
The seriousness of these drainage constraints was demonstrated when changes were made to the M56 and a substantial attenuation tank had to be constructed on land next to the motorway. This was necessary to manage surface-water runoff and avoid placing further pressure on the already inadequate local drainage system.
A development of this scale would substantially increase surface-water runoff and demand on drainage infrastructure. Unless the existing network and culvert were comprehensively upgraded, there would be an increased and unacceptable risk of flooding to established homes on Cow Lane. Properties such as Whitegables and Redcroft are particularly vulnerable because they have cellars and are situated at one of the lowest points on the drainage network.
The Council must not allow development to proceed on the assumption that attenuation measures alone will resolve these longstanding problems. A detailed, independent and cumulative flood-risk assessment is essential. This must consider the combined impact of all 12 proposed sites, climate-change allowances, groundwater, surface-water runoff and the capacity and condition of the entire downstream drainage network.
The wider infrastructure is also wholly inadequate for development on this scale. Water supply, wastewater drainage, electricity and gas networks would all require significant upgrading. These improvements must be fully assessed, funded and delivered before any development takes place—not left until existing residents experience flooding, service disruption or reduced network capacity.
More generally, this enormous proposal would fundamentally and permanently change the character of Ashley. It is a small rural village with very limited facilities and a railway station that provides, at best, a limited hourly service. Describing Ashley as well connected does not reflect the reality of living here or the village’s capacity to accommodate such a substantial development.
Every road into Ashley involves narrow rural roads and bridges that are unsuitable for the volume of construction traffic and additional daily journeys this development would generate. The impact on road safety, congestion, noise and the quality of life of existing residents would be severe.
The proposed land is beautiful Green Belt countryside and productive farmland, surrounded by wildlife habitats, historic buildings and peaceful rural landscapes. Developing 291 hectares would cause irreversible harm to the setting, identity and character of Ashley. It would effectively overwhelm the existing village and change it forever.
I therefore strongly request that Cheshire East Council rejects this site and does not take the proposed development forward through the Local Plan process.
Please register my comments as a formal objection and keep me informed of all future consultations and decisions relating to this proposal.
Yours faithfully,
Sarah Atkinson