Local plan scoping consultation

Formal Representation
I am writing to formally object to the inclusion and assessment of the 291.03-hectare land submission surrounding Ashley in the Cheshire East Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the ongoing Local Plan review. The submission comprises 12 contiguous sites covering a total of 291.03 hectares.
In my view, this land is fundamentally unsuitable for development on a strategic scale. The planning considerations outlined below demonstrate the extent to which the proposal conflicts with established national and local planning policies.
1. Conflict with the Spatial Strategy and Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy
• Lowest settlement ranking: Under Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS), Ashley is categorised within the lowest tier. The village lacks the essential infrastructure needed to support substantial housing growth, including primary school capacity, healthcare facilities and local employment opportunities.
• Failure to meet sustainable location principles: Directing major growth towards a rural location without frequent public transport would conflict with CELPS Policies SD 1 and SD 2 and with the principles established in Chapter 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These policies seek to concentrate significant growth within more sustainable settlements, particularly Principal Towns and Key Service Centres.
2. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy and Failure to Meet “Grey Belt” Criteria
• “Wash-over” Green Belt status: The entire parish of Ashley has a “wash-over” Green Belt designation under CELPS Policy PG 3. This provides important protection for the open and rural character of the village and its surrounding countryside.
• Essential strategic buffer: Ashley forms part of one of the narrowest remaining countryside buffers separating Greater Manchester, including Trafford, Hale, and Altrincham, from Cheshire East settlements such as Mobberley and Knutsford. Development on this scale would undermine the core Green Belt purposes set out in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF, particularly:
o checking unrestricted urban sprawl;
o preventing neighbouring towns from merging; and
o safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
• Failure to qualify as “Grey Belt”: The land consists predominantly of productive, open farmland that continues to make a substantial contribution to Green Belt purposes. It cannot reasonably be regarded as previously developed land or land making only a negligible contribution to those purposes. There are also significant environmental, heritage and agricultural constraints affecting the area.
3. Transport Deficits, Highway Safety and Aviation Safeguarding
• Inadequate rail connections: Ashley railway station cannot reasonably be regarded as a well-connected transport hub. It currently has, at best, one train per hour in each direction. With the proposed new station at Cheadle now likely to proceed, future service models may reduce the frequency at Ashley to one train every two hours. This would leave the station incapable of supporting the level of sustainable commuter travel associated with development on this scale.
• Physical network constraints and bridge bottlenecks: The highway network surrounding Ashley consists largely of narrow rural lanes with significant structural pinch points. These include narrow bridges over the railway, the River Bollin and smaller watercourses such as Birkin Brook. The additional traffic generated by large-scale housing development would create serious congestion and road-safety concerns. This would conflict with CELPS Policies CO 1 and CO 4 and the relevant transport provisions of the NPPF.
• Airport safeguarding constraints: The proposed area lies beneath operational noise contours and within bird-strike hazard zones associated with Manchester Airport. The suitability of high-density residential development in this location is therefore highly questionable and would need to be considered against aerodrome safeguarding requirements and CELPS Policy SE 12 concerning pollution, public safety and noise exposure.
4. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
• Soil quality and food production: Agricultural land classifications, including evidence gathered in connection with HS2 Phase 2b, indicate that much of the proposed area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. This is not a series of isolated pockets but an extensive and largely contiguous area of productive, high-quality farmland.
• Conflict with planning policy: National and local planning policies require substantial weight to be given to protecting high-quality agricultural land. CELPS Policy SE 2 supports the efficient use of land, with development directed towards brownfield and lower-quality agricultural land wherever suitable alternatives exist.
5. Environmental, Landscape and Heritage Impacts
• Landscape degradation: Development on this scale would cause lasting harm to the landscape setting of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation, as well as the Rostherne and Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation. This would conflict with the landscape protections contained in CELPS Policy SE 4.
• Ecological harm: The development could sever established wildlife corridors and threaten sensitive habitats, including those associated with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI. This would conflict with CELPS Policy SE 3 and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.
• Impact on heritage assets: The area includes the settings of 19 Grade II listed structures, including Ashley Hall. CELPS Policy SE 7 and Chapter 16 of the NPPF require great weight to be given to conserving designated heritage assets, including the contribution made by their landscape settings.
6. Hydrological, Drainage and Utility Constraints
• Surface-water and flood risks: The area lacks the foul sewerage, electrical-grid and surface-water drainage infrastructure necessary to support development of this scale. Extensive building and the associated loss of permeable land could significantly increase surface-water flooding within the River Bollin catchment. This would conflict with CELPS Policy SE 13 and the flood-risk provisions of the NPPF.
• Utility infrastructure deficits: Under CELPS Policy IN 1, candidate sites must demonstrate that the necessary infrastructure can be delivered without causing unacceptable environmental harm elsewhere. There is currently no convincing evidence that the infrastructure required for these 12 sites could be provided sustainably or within a reasonable timeframe.
Conclusion and Formal Request
Taken together, the 12 adjoining submissions covering 291.03 hectares face an exceptional concentration of planning constraints. They conflict with the established settlement strategy, threaten the purposes and integrity of the Green Belt, depend upon inadequate transport and utility infrastructure, involve the loss of high-quality agricultural land and risk substantial harm to valued landscapes, habitats and heritage assets.
This is not a sustainable location for development on the scale contemplated.
I therefore formally request that Cheshire East Council classify all 12 submissions comprising this 291.03-hectare area as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable through the SHELAA process, and exclude them from consideration for allocation in the emerging Local Plan.


Chris Welford
Director