Local plan scoping consultation

"1.These housing proposals were drawn up before all the vast land fires in the UK and in an increasing number of European countries, one of which (Belgium) is still spreading as I type this. This burnt land will not produce any useful or commercial growth for some years to come, and much of it was part of local food production systems. The UK now only produces 50% of its own food (80% 60 years ago ?), and this is set to fall quite rapidly, given all the housing and "Critical National Infrastructure" schemes about to be inflicted upon farm land and open countryside by irresponsible (even ignorant) politicians and others obsessed with a very injurious concept of "Growth".

2. The UK cannot any longer just rely on the ready availability of food imports, many of which are from lands affected by these fires; their governments may well quite soon ban food exports, to ensure their own populations have enough to eat. India (because of a poor harvest) arbitrarily banned all grain exports in 2022, and this affected some poor countries quite badly; I believe that situation there has since eased. We still have continuing problems in Ukraine, that former bread-basket for much of the world.

3. These fires should serve as a massive wake-up call regarding our food supply and land-use planning. This last has always seemed to me to be been geared purely in favour of development and developers' profits. Because of the way land-value arithmetic works, permitting a development massively increases land values, which get carried into positive GDP growth figures, so there is maximum incentive to approve schemes which massively destroy nature, and eventually our general well-being. Food supply has always been left by all governments to the Supermarkets, hardly a wise situation; we have had for some years a rising population and a falling domestic food supply, something which rulers in times gone by would have considered insane. Indeed, many countries went to war to obtain farmland to improve food supply.

4. We need a complete reversal of current land planning policies so as to permit far more food to be grown domestically, especially locally. This means protecting from developers and infrastructure proposers all land which grows, and is capable of growing food. Unimplemented planning permissions should be revoked --- national food security trumps developers' profits at all times. This of course will be totally anathema to those in big business and big property, but their injurious interests can no longer be allowed to worsen the long-term viability of the UK which is already at some risk, caused by many years of destructive land-use policies.

4.1 I have never seen a government document or plan which talks about the indefinite survival of our country and its people into the indefinite future; instead, policies are all geared to short-term gain for one "constituency" or another, depending upon who is calling the shots at the time. Currently, it is "housing" and "energy and techno-infrastructure" which are driving the cart. The UK's Planning System does indeed need revision, but absolutely not in the ways in which it is currently being torn up at the moment. It must safeguard our natural assets indefinitely, an idea which seems to be quite beyond the grasp of the current bunch of politicians, of all parties.

5. I understand that Ashley may be seriously affected by a Northern Powerhouse Railway plan. This - to me -- is a completely and unbelievably preposterous plan evolved by Burnham (when Mayor of GMCA) and Rotheram (current Mayor of LCRCA) who are dissatisfied with the current "over one hour" train journey time from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly. They want a new quite high-speed line from Lime Street to cut this time to 20 minutes to the airport, then onwards from there to Piccadilly. Rotheram says there will be a fast train every 10 minutes in each direction. I suspect that no "origin & destination" or passenger use surveys have been done on this; if this line were built, it would de-stabilize the finances of the existing two lines between the two cities. All the Greater Manchester commuter rail services are subsidized, and have been since the advent of mass motoring in the early 1960's. This "Mayors' Railway" will not actually serve the Airport rail station ! Their "Airport" stop will be on Davenport Green - over 1 mile away from the REAL airport station. This is because the landowners of the 300+ acres of open space around the airport want it so positioned where it will realize the maximum developmental value of that land. The current plans of Transport for Greater Manchester want to see work on this line start well in advance of frankly more "public service oriented" projects.

5.1 Which tells you that this is not about trains at all, but about a huge and terribly damaging spread of urbanization around the route of this line, affecting Lymm, Broomedge, Ashley and Rostherne. Even more precious farmland will be destroyed by all the numerous property developments which will be engineered into existence to finance this line. In the current environmental and world insecurity situation, we can no longer afford to indulge the "Infrastructure hubris" of today's short-termist "Growthists".

5.2 There are four desirable local rail electrifications which would spread far more benefits to far more postcodes than this "Mayors' Railway" would ever be likely to do:- Hazel Grove to Buxton, Bolton to Clitheroe, Bolton to Southport, and Stockport to Chester (via Altrincham). But the obsession with huge grand projects will destroy any prospects of any of these schemes even getting started.

6. Just for the record, although I do not live in Ashely, I do go there quite often, and I greatly value its open space and agricultural character. Once this is destroyed, it can never be recovered. But traditional business/government accounting does not include this sort of loss".




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.
Please consider this e-mail as additional comments which would go at the end of the PDF attachment; I managed to add my name and address to that document, but could not get any further text into it. My comments are as follows:-

"1.These housing proposals were drawn up before all the vast land fires in the UK and in an increasing number of European countries, one of which (Belgium) is still spreading as I type this. This burnt land will not produce any useful or commercial growth for some years to come, and much of it was part of local food production systems. The UK now only produces 50% of its own food (80% 60 years ago ?), and this is set to fall quite rapidly, given all the housing and "Critical National Infrastructure" schemes about to be inflicted upon farm land and open countryside by irresponsible (even ignorant) politicians and others obsessed with a very injurious concept of "Growth".

2. The UK cannot any longer just rely on the ready availability of food imports, many of which are from lands affected by these fires; their governments may well quite soon ban food exports, to ensure their own populations have enough to eat. India (because of a poor harvest) arbitrarily banned all grain exports in 2022, and this affected some poor countries quite badly; I believe that situation there has since eased. We still have continuing problems in Ukraine, that former bread-basket for much of the world.

3. These fires should serve as a massive wake-up call regarding our food supply and land-use planning. This last has always seemed to me to be been geared purely in favour of development and developers' profits. Because of the way land-value arithmetic works, permitting a development massively increases land values, which get carried into positive GDP growth figures, so there is maximum incentive to approve schemes which massively destroy nature, and eventually our general well-being. Food supply has always been left by all governments to the Supermarkets, hardly a wise situation; we have had for some years a rising population and a falling domestic food supply, something which rulers in times gone by would have considered insane. Indeed, many countries went to war to obtain farmland to improve food supply.

4. We need a complete reversal of current land planning policies so as to permit far more food to be grown domestically, especially locally. This means protecting from developers and infrastructure proposers all land which grows, and is capable of growing food. Unimplemented planning permissions should be revoked --- national food security trumps developers' profits at all times. This of course will be totally anathema to those in big business and big property, but their injurious interests can no longer be allowed to worsen the long-term viability of the UK which is already at some risk, caused by many years of destructive land-use policies.

4.1 I have never seen a government document or plan which talks about the indefinite survival of our country and its people into the indefinite future; instead, policies are all geared to short-term gain for one "constituency" or another, depending upon who is calling the shots at the time. Currently, it is "housing" and "energy and techno-infrastructure" which are driving the cart. The UK's Planning System does indeed need revision, but absolutely not in the ways in which it is currently being torn up at the moment. It must safeguard our natural assets indefinitely, an idea which seems to be quite beyond the grasp of the current bunch of politicians, of all parties.

5. I understand that Ashley may be seriously affected by a Northern Powerhouse Railway plan. This - to me -- is a completely and unbelievably preposterous plan evolved by Burnham (when Mayor of GMCA) and Rotheram (current Mayor of LCRCA) who are dissatisfied with the current "over one hour" train journey time from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Airport via Manchester Piccadilly. They want a new quite high-speed line from Lime Street to cut this time to 20 minutes to the airport, then onwards from there to Piccadilly. Rotheram says there will be a fast train every 10 minutes in each direction. I suspect that no "origin & destination" or passenger use surveys have been done on this; if this line were built, it would de-stabilize the finances of the existing two lines between the two cities. All the Greater Manchester commuter rail services are subsidized, and have been since the advent of mass motoring in the early 1960's. This "Mayors' Railway" will not actually serve the Airport rail station ! Their "Airport" stop will be on Davenport Green - over 1 mile away from the REAL airport station. This is because the landowners of the 300+ acres of open space around the airport want it so positioned where it will realize the maximum developmental value of that land. The current plans of Transport for Greater Manchester want to see work on this line start well in advance of frankly more "public service oriented" projects.

5.1 Which tells you that this is not about trains at all, but about a huge and terribly damaging spread of urbanization around the route of this line, affecting Lymm, Broomedge, Ashley and Rostherne. Even more precious farmland will be destroyed by all the numerous property developments which will be engineered into existence to finance this line. In the current environmental and world insecurity situation, we can no longer afford to indulge the "Infrastructure hubris" of today's short-termist "Growthists".

5.2 There are four desirable local rail electrifications which would spread far more benefits to far more postcodes than this "Mayors' Railway" would ever be likely to do:- Hazel Grove to Buxton, Bolton to Clitheroe, Bolton to Southport, and Stockport to Chester (via Altrincham). But the obsession with huge grand projects will destroy any prospects of any of these schemes even getting started.

6. Just for the record, although I do not live in Ashely, I do go there quite often, and I greatly value its open space and agricultural character. Once this is destroyed, it can never be recovered. But traditional business/government accounting does not include this sort of loss".