Local plan scoping consultation

Dear Planning Officer,

I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed housing allocations in and around Mobberley.

My concern is not simply that new houses are being proposed, but that the locations identified appear poorly suited to supporting the additional population they would bring. Mobberley has developed as a small rural settlement rather than as a suburb, and its infrastructure reflects that.

The surrounding countryside is one of the village’s greatest assets. The proposed sites include open fields which are used for agriculture and provide important areas for wildlife. They are also crossed by public rights of way which are regularly used by local people for walking and recreation. Once these areas have been developed, that landscape and its character cannot readily be restored.

More importantly, I question how the additional traffic would be accommodated.

The roads surrounding the village are predominantly narrow country lanes without continuous pavements. They already carry a considerable amount of traffic, including vehicles using Mobberley as a route between neighbouring settlements. The situation is particularly difficult around Smith Lane, Slade Lane and Station Road, where bridges and other narrow sections restrict the flow of traffic.

The railway bridge on Smith Lane and the two bridges over Mobberley Brook are obvious examples. These are not roads where capacity can simply be increased without substantial intervention. Development on the land between the railway and Smith Lane and on the site west of Smith Lane would, in my view, make these existing constraints considerably worse.

This would have consequences beyond congestion. More vehicles using narrow lanes would make conditions less comfortable and less safe for people walking, cycling and riding horses. It could also worsen existing problems with speeding and increase pollution from additional traffic.

There is no convincing public transport alternative either. The rail connection is limited and is already heavily used at peak times, while the bus network does not provide comprehensive coverage of the areas proposed for development. Given the relatively small amount of employment within Mobberley, many new residents would presumably commute to larger employment centres such as Manchester, Stockport and the airport. This would add pressure not only within the village but also on the roads connecting it with Altrincham, Knutsford and Wilmslow.

I am also concerned about the capacity of local facilities. Schools, healthcare and other services in a small village cannot necessarily absorb a major increase in population without significant investment. If that investment does not accompany the development, the result will be further journeys out of the village and yet more pressure on the transport network.

There are alternatives which seem considerably more sensible. Rather than developing established countryside in a relatively poorly connected rural settlement, Cheshire East should prioritise appropriate brownfield locations and sites with stronger links to the motorway network. With the M6 and M56 nearby, development in more strategically connected locations could give residents better access to employment while avoiding the need to send large volumes of additional traffic through Mobberley’s narrow lanes.

I hope that the council will consider the combined effect of these proposals rather than assessing each site in isolation. In my view, the current proposals risk changing the nature of Mobberley, increasing congestion and road safety problems, placing pressure on local services and causing unnecessary loss of countryside.

I strongly urge the council to reconsider these allocations.

Yours faithfully,

Jake