Full text:
Dear Sir/Madam,
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. The submission comprises 12 adjoining sites totalling 291.03 hectares.
This site is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic development. The key planning policy grounds demonstrating why the submission conflicts with national and local planning frameworks are set out below.
1. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy and 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 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, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham, and the towns and villages of Cheshire East, including Mobberley and 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, namely previously developed land or land making a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes. Open, working farmland across Ashley strongly fulfils 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 and Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy
• Incompatible settlement rank: Ashley is classified at the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy under CELPS Policy PG 2. 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, CELPS Policy SD 2 and NPPF Chapter 2, which require development to be directed to Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2 Key Service Centres.
3. Severe Highway Safety Risks and 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, 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 regarding public safety and noise exposure.
4. Flood Risk, Drainage and Utility Constraints
• Surface water and 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 and NPPF Chapter 14, Paragraphs 165–175.
• Infrastructure deficits: Under CELPS Policy IN 1, candidate sites must demonstrate deliverable utility connections without causing off-site environmental harm.
5. Unacceptable Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
• Food security and soil quality: Soil assessments, including HS2 Phase 2b data, confirm that the site comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. The land forms a continuous tract of BMV agricultural land rather than isolated parcels, increasing its strategic importance for food production.
• Policy conflict: National policy, including NPPF Paragraph 180, and local strategy, including CELPS Policy SE 2, require local authorities to protect high-grade agricultural land for food security and direct development to brownfield or lower-quality land first.
6. Irreparable Harm to Landscape, Ecology and Historic Assets
• Landscape protection: The proposal would destroy the setting of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation, violating CELPS Policy SE 4.
• Ecological degradation: Development would sever protected ecological corridors and threaten sensitive habitats, including Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve/SSSI, breaching CELPS Policy SE 3 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 and NPPF Chapter 16, Paragraphs 200–208, great weight must be given to conserving designated heritage assets and their landscape settings.
Conclusion and Formal Request
This 291.03 hectare submission, comprising 12 adjoining sites, conflicts with almost every fundamental constraint metric used in plan-making. It breaches local spatial strategy, fails national Green Belt policies, lacks basic infrastructure, would result in the loss of 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.
future Local Plan allocations.
Yours faithfully,
Kind Regards
Natalie
Natalie Kay
