Full text:
Our Location
We live at the very end of (REDACTED) right next to the (REDACTED). Our property is itself in Green Belt and backs on to the Bollin Valley. There is a public right of way to the left of our house which is used by ourselves and many others to gain access to the Bollin Valley and the country walks through the areas around Ashley. These walks and the countryside are enjoyed by local residents and people that come from far afield. The linkage between Ashley, Ashley Hall, Rostherne and Tatton creates in our opinion an area of outstanding natural beauty.
A development of this scale and magnitude would deny enjoyment of this area to future generations and the current neighbourhood. This is because of the devastating impact it would have on the countryside, wildlife and associated enjoyment. Consequently, we have set out below our formal objection.
Formal Representation
We are writing to formally submit my objection regarding the inclusion and assessment of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Cheshire East Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the ongoing Local Plan review (comprising 12 contiguous sites totalling 291.03 hectares).
This land allocation is fundamentally inappropriate for strategic scale development. The detailed planning policy justifications outlined below demonstrate how this submission directly conflicts with established national and local planning frameworks.
1. Conflict with Spatial Strategy & Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy
• Lowest Settlement Ranking: Under Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS), Ashley is categorised at the lowest tier. The village lacks essential local infrastructure, including primary school capacity, healthcare facilities, and local employment opportunities required to sustain housing growth.
• Failure of Sustainable Location Principles: Promoting major growth in a rural location that lacks high-frequency public transport directly violates CELPS Policy SD 1 (Sustainable Development in Cheshire East), CELPS Policy SD 2, and Chapter 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which explicitly dictate that growth must be focused toward Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2 Key Service Centres.
2. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy & Failure to Meet "Grey Belt" Exceptions
•"Wash-Over" Green Belt Status: The entire parish of Ashley carries a "wash-over" Green Belt designation under CELPS Policy PG 3 (Green Belt). This classification provides strict protection aimed at safeguarding the open and rural character of settlements enveloped by countryside.
• Essential Strategic Buffer: Ashley operates as the narrowest remaining countryside buffer separating Greater Manchester (Trafford/Hale/Altrincham) from Cheshire East settlements (Mobberley/Knutsford). Developing this site would directly breach core Green Belt functions set out in Paragraph 143 of the 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.
• Ineligibility for "Grey Belt" Reclassification: Under national 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). The productive, open farmland across Ashley strongly fulfils Green Belt functions and is further disqualified under NPPF Footnote 7 due to statutory environmental, heritage, and agricultural constraints.
3. Transport Infrastructure Deficits, Highway Safety & Aviation Safeguarding
• Inadequate Rail Connections: 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 in Parliament:
“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 does not have a car park.
• Physical Network Constraints & Bridge Bottlenecks: The local highway network surrounding Ashley consists of narrow rural lanes and significant structural pinch points. Severe physical limitations are created by narrow bridges across the area, not only over the railway line, but also crossing the River Bollin and smaller watercourses such as Birkin Brook. The substantial traffic volumes generated by a housing development would cause severe cumulative network congestion and acute road safety risks, in direct conflict with CELPS Policy CO 1 (Sustainable Travel and Transport), Policy CO 4, and NPPF Paragraph 115.
• Statutory Airport Safeguarding Constraints: The site lies directly beneath operational noise contours and bird-strike hazard zones for Manchester Airport. Placing high-density residential development in this location breaches statutory aerodrome safeguarding protocols and CELPS Policy SE 12 (Pollution and Land Instability) regarding public safety and noise exposure.
4. Severe Loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land
• Soil Quality & Food Production: Agricultural land classifications (including dataset findings from HS2 Phase 2b) confirm that the submission consists of Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Rather than fragmented pockets, the site forms an unbroken, contiguous area of high-grade farmland vital for regional food security.
• Direct Policy Violation: Both national policy (NPPF Paragraph 180) and local policy (CELPS Policy SE 2: Efficient Use of Land) strictly mandate the preservation of high-grade agricultural land for food production, requiring development to be directed to brownfield or lower-quality land first.
5. Unacceptable Environmental, Landscape & Heritage Impacts
• Landscape Degradation: Allocating this site would destroy the landscape setting of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation (LLD) as well as the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, violating CELPS Policy SE 4 (The Landscape).
• Ecological Harm: Development would sever connected wildlife corridors and jeopardise sensitive natural habitats, including the Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve / SSSI, conflicting with CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and NPPF Paragraphs 180-185.
• Impact on Heritage Assets: The area contains the settings of 19 Grade II listed structures (including Ashley Hall). CELPS Policy SE 7 (The Historic Environment) and Chapter 16 of the NPPF (Paragraphs 200-208) require that great weight be placed on preserving designated heritage assets and their landscape settings.
6. Hydrological, Drainage & Utility Constraints
• Surface Water & Flood Risks: The area lacks deep foul sewerage infrastructure, main electrical grid capacity, and adequate surface water drainage. Large-scale development would significantly increase surface water flood risks within the River Bollin catchment, breaching CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and NPPF Chapter 14 (Paragraphs 165-175).
• Utility Infrastructure Deficits: Contrary to CELPS Policy IN 1 (Infrastructure), candidate sites must prove that deliverable utility infrastructure can be supplied without causing off-site environmental degradation.
Conclusion & Formal Request
This 291.03-hectare proposal (spanning 12 adjoining sites) fails to comply with virtually every major planning constraint metric. It contradicts the local spatial strategy, fails national Green Belt tests, relies on inadequate transport and utility infrastructure, destroys high-grade agricultural land, and causes severe harm to protected historic and natural landscapes.
We formally request that Cheshire East Council classify all 12 submissions within this 291.03-hectare site as Unsuitable, Unavailable, and Undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment and exclude them from future Local Plan allocations.
Yours faithfully,
David and Angela Burn
