Local plan scoping consultation

Comment

Representation ID: 1801

Received: 15/08/2026

Respondent: Terry Hall

To: Cheshire East Council
Subject: Objection to Proposed Development Allocation in Ashley
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed development allocation in Ashley, on the grounds that the site is neither sustainable nor compliant with national Green Belt policy.
1. Conflict with National Green Belt Policy
Ashley forms part of a vital, narrow buffer within the North Cheshire Green Belt, preventing sprawl between Hale/Trafford and Knutsford/Mobberley. As the attached evidence states, “This land forms a vital, narrow buffer in the North Cheshire Green Belt… It is Manchester’s ‘breathing space’.” The land is open, working farmland, and therefore fails to meet the national definition of ‘Grey Belt’, which only applies to previously developed land or land making a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes. Releasing this site would directly undermine the strategic function of the Green Belt in this location.
2. Unsuitable Transport and Infrastructure Capacity
The rural transport network around Ashley is fundamentally incapable of supporting large scale development. The document highlights “Inadequate rural lane network, narrow railway bridges, A538/M56 congestion, and high forced car dependency.” These constraints are long standing, structural, and cannot be mitigated without major, disproportionate infrastructure interventions. Any significant increase in traffic would worsen congestion, reduce road safety, and increase car dependency—contrary to national and local transport objectives.
3. Failure to Meet Sustainable Development Principles
Ashley is a small rural parish with extremely limited public transport, facilities, and services. As the evidence notes, “Ashley is a small, rural parish with very little public transport, infrastructure or facilities.” National and local planning frameworks require growth to be focused on Tier 1 and Tier 2 urban centres, where infrastructure, employment, and sustainable transport options already exist. Allocating large scale development in Ashley would represent a clear departure from these principles and would create an isolated, car dependent settlement.
4. Strategic Planning Harm
The cumulative impact of releasing this land would be severe:
• Loss of a critical Green Belt buffer
• Increased urban sprawl
• Significant transport and congestion impacts
• Unsustainable patterns of development
• Erosion of rural character and landscape integrity
These harms are substantial, long term, and cannot be justified when alternative, more sustainable locations exist within the wider area.
Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the proposed allocation in Ashley. The site does not meet national policy tests for Green Belt release, is unsustainable in transport and infrastructure terms, and conflicts with the strategic planning objectives for the region.
I request that the site be removed from the allocation proposals and that development be directed to more appropriate, policy compliant locations.

Yours faithfully,

Terry Hall