Full text:
Formal Objection Representation
I am writing to register my explicit objection to the allocation and consideration of the 291.03-hectare tract of land surrounding Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the broader Local Plan review. This objection covers all 12 interconnected parcels comprising the total area.
A strategic designation of this magnitude in this location is entirely unviable. The detailed statutory policy grounds set out below outline why promoting development across these sites fundamentally contradicts national and local planning frameworks.
1. Invalidation under Spatial Strategy & Sustainable Growth Policies
• Lowest Hierarchy Tier: Under Policy PG 2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS), Ashley occupies the lowest tier in the settlement structure. The area is totally unequipped with the primary education, healthcare facilities, and local job markets required to support a strategic population influx.
• Contradiction of Sustainable Location Principles: Directing large-scale residential development to an isolated rural settlement runs contrary to CELPS Policy SD 1, Policy SD 2, and Chapter 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These policies mandate that strategic development must be concentrated within Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2 Key Service Centres rather than open countryside.
2. Failure to Comply with Green Belt Policy & "Grey Belt" Criteria
• Protected "Wash-Over" Status: Policy PG 3 of the CELPS designates the entirety of Ashley Parish as "wash-over" Green Belt. This protective status is intentionally applied to maintain the open, rural character of sensitive rural villages.
• Critical Countryside Separation: Ashley forms the narrowest remaining undeveloped gap between Greater Manchester (Trafford, Hale, Altrincham) and Cheshire East (Knutsford, Mobberley). Developing this site would directly violate core Green Belt aims under NPPF Paragraph 143—specifically preventing urban sprawl (Purpose a), preventing the merging of neighbouring settlements (Purpose b), and guarding against rural encroachment (Purpose c).
• Disqualification from "Grey Belt" Exception: Revised national frameworks restrict Green Belt release to genuine "Grey Belt" land (previously developed land or parcels offering negligible Green Belt benefit). This contiguous tract of active, productive farmland performs a vital Green Belt function and is further excluded under NPPF Footnote 7 due to severe heritage, environmental, and agricultural constraints.
3. Highway Safety Hazards, Rail Constraints & Aviation Restrictions
• Deficient Rail Services: Ashley train station lacks the service capacity needed for sustainable transit. It operates on a maximum frequency of just one train per hour in each direction. Furthermore, with the planned new station at Cheadle progressing (it has planning permission and is fully funded), prospective service reallocations would reduce Ashley’s service frequency to a single train every two hours, rendering rail commuting unfeasible for new residents. In March 2026 Keir Mather MP, parliamentary under-secretary of state in the Department for Transport, stated, "The Rail North partnership board is the decision-making board for service considerations for Northern Trains Ltd and TransPennine trains, and is one part of the process that needs to take place to enable the service change. It is now evident that service change, including reducing the frequency of services that stop at Ashley and Plumley, is the only way that an hourly stop at a new station at Cheadle could be accommodated.”
Ashley station also doesn’t have a car park.
• Severe Network Pinch Points & Narrow Bridges: The rural road infrastructure in Ashley cannot accommodate high-volume vehicular traffic. A major physical bottleneck is created by narrow bridges across the area—notably over the railway line, as well as critical watercourses including the River Bollin and Birkin Brook. Funnelling major site traffic onto these constrained routes would cause severe cumulative network failure and safety hazards, violating CELPS Policy CO 1, Policy CO 4, and NPPF Paragraph 115.
• Statutory Aerodrome Safeguarding: Positioned beneath the operational flight paths for Manchester Airport, the land falls within restricted noise contours and bird-strike management areas. Building housing here conflicts with mandatory aerodrome safety rules and CELPS Policy SE 12 regarding public health and noise impact.
4. Direct Loss of High-Value Agricultural Land (BMV)
• Impact on Agricultural Productivity: Land quality assessments (including survey data from HS2 Phase 2b) demonstrate that this submission consists of Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) soil. The site represents an expansive, uninterrupted tract of high-tier farmland that plays an essential role in regional food production.
• Non-Compliance with Soil Protection Guidelines: Both NPPF Paragraph 180 and CELPS Policy SE 2 require planning authorities to protect top-tier agricultural soils and prioritize brownfield or lower-grade land for new development.
5. Adverse Impacts on Landscape, Ecology & Cultural Heritage
• Destruction of Protected Landscapes: Spatial allocation of these sites would irreparably damage the setting of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation (LLD) along with the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, violating CELPS Policy SE 4.
• Ecological Fragmentation: Developing this area would sever established habitat corridors and imperil sensitive sites, including the nearby Cotterill Clough SSSI / Nature Reserve, breaching CELPS Policy SE 3 and NPPF Paragraphs 180–185.
• Irreversible Heritage Damage: The surrounding land frames the settings of 19 Grade II listed structures, including Ashley Hall. Under CELPS Policy SE 7 and Chapter 16 of the NPPF (Paragraphs 200–208), local authorities are legally required to give great weight to conserving designated historic assets and their rural settings.
6. Hydrological, Drainage & Utility Inadequacies
• Exacerbation of Flood Risk: The local area lacks the sewer infrastructure, power grid capacity, and drainage networks required for intensive growth. Bulk development across this site would increase surface water run-off into the River Bollin catchment, breaching CELPS Policy SE 13 and NPPF Chapter 14 (Paragraphs 165–175).
• Inability to Meet Utility Standards: Under CELPS Policy IN 1, proposed sites must demonstrate deliverable infrastructure solutions without causing adverse off-site environmental impacts.
Conclusion and Action Requested
The submission covering these 12 adjoining parcels (totalling 291.03 hectares) fails against every core planning policy criterion. It violates the established spatial strategy, conflicts with statutory Green Belt protections, lacks viable public transport or road capacity, removes top-grade agricultural land, and threatens protected ecological and heritage assets.
I formally request that Cheshire East Council mark all 12 site submissions as Unsuitable, Unavailable, and Undeliverable within the SHELAA report and omit them entirely from future Local Plan allocations.
Regards
Sophie Molyneux
