Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to register my strong objection to the allocation or consideration of the 291.03-hectare site, comprising 12 interconnected parcels of land around Ashley, within the SHELAA or wider Local Plan review.
My sister lives in Ashley and, through visiting her and spending time in the village, I know the area and the surrounding countryside. I have seen first-hand both the very rural nature of Ashley and the limitations of its existing infrastructure. The scale of development apparently contemplated here would, in my view, fundamentally change the character of the village and surrounding landscape.
This is not simply an objection to development taking place near a family member’s home. There appear to be serious and objective planning reasons why development on anything approaching this scale would be inappropriate, unsustainable and contrary to the proper spatial planning of the area.
1. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy and “Grey Belt” Standards
Ashley is a washed-over Green Belt settlement under CELPS Policy PG 3. The open countryside surrounding it is fundamental to its rural character.
The land also forms part of the important countryside gap between Cheshire East, including Knutsford and Mobberley, and Greater Manchester, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham. Large-scale development would materially erode that separation and risk precisely the type of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence that Green Belt policy exists to prevent.
Nor does this appear to be land that could properly be characterised as “Grey Belt”. It is active, productive farmland which performs important Green Belt functions and is subject to significant ecological, heritage, landscape and flood constraints.
2. Conflict with the Settlement Hierarchy and Sustainable Development
Ashley sits at the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy under CELPS Policy PG 2. It simply does not have the infrastructure one would expect to support strategic housing development.
From my own experience of visiting Ashley, it is very clearly a rural village rather than a service centre. It does not have the range of schools, medical facilities, shops, employment opportunities and other everyday infrastructure necessary to accommodate development of this magnitude.
Directing major housing growth here therefore appears fundamentally inconsistent with CELPS Policies SD 1 and SD 2 and the principle that strategic growth should be focused on locations capable of supporting it.
3. Environmental, Heritage and Landscape Harm
The proposed parcels collectively represent an enormous area of contiguous open countryside. Developing them would inevitably fragment habitats and wildlife corridors and could affect important nearby environmental assets, including Cotterill Clough SSSI/Nature Reserve.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
There is also a substantial heritage issue. The agricultural landscape provides the setting for numerous Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The significance of those buildings cannot sensibly be considered separately from the rural landscape in which they sit.
Development on this scale would also fundamentally alter the landscape character and visual integrity of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
4. Transport, Highway Safety and Aviation Constraints
One of my particular concerns, having visited Ashley, is the obvious mismatch between the existing transport infrastructure and development on the scale being suggested.
The surrounding road network consists substantially of rural roads and lanes, with significant physical constraints and bottlenecks, including crossings over the railway, River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These are not roads designed to accommodate the very substantial additional traffic movements that a major housing development would generate.
Public transport cannot realistically resolve that problem. Ashley station already has a limited service and very limited commuter parking. The announced reduction in rail frequency further undermines any suggestion that a major development here could be genuinely rail-led or sustainable in transport terms.
The site’s proximity to Manchester Airport and its location beneath active flight paths also raise obvious issues concerning aircraft noise, aerodrome safeguarding and bird-strike management which require proper consideration.
5. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
I am also particularly concerned by the proposed loss of such a large, contiguous area of productive farmland.
Available ground testing, including HS2 Phase 2b survey information, indicates that much of the 291.03-hectare site comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
At a time when food security and the protection of high-quality agricultural land are increasingly important national considerations, permanently removing almost 300 hectares of productive countryside from agricultural use should require exceptionally strong justification.
6. Flood Risk, Drainage and Infrastructure
There are existing flooding issues affecting parts of the area, particularly towards the M56. Development on this scale would introduce a very substantial amount of impermeable surface into what is currently predominantly open agricultural land.
The cumulative effect on surface-water runoff and the River Bollin catchment must therefore be considered extremely carefully, including the potential consequences for communities downstream.
There are equally serious questions about whether the existing electricity grid, sewerage, drainage and wider utility infrastructure could support development on anything approaching this scale without extensive new infrastructure.
Requested Action
Taken together, these are not minor constraints capable of being addressed through detailed design. They go to the fundamental question of whether this is an appropriate or sustainable location for strategic development at all.
As someone with a close family connection to Ashley and who knows the village through regularly visiting my sister there, I am deeply concerned about what development on this scale would mean for Ashley, its surrounding countryside and the wider area.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to assess the 12 parcels collectively, as well as individually, and to record the land as Unsuitable, Unavailable and/or Undeliverable where the evidence supports those conclusions. I strongly urge the Council not to allocate this 291.03-hectare site for strategic development through the Local Plan.

I am writing to register my strong objection to the allocation or consideration of the 291.03-hectare site, comprising 12 interconnected parcels of land around Ashley, within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Local Plan review.

My sister lives in Ashley and, through regularly visiting her and spending time in the village, I know the area and surrounding countryside well. I have seen first-hand both the highly rural nature of Ashley and the limitations of its existing infrastructure. The scale of development apparently contemplated here would, in my view, fundamentally change the character of the village and the wider landscape beyond recognition.

This is not simply an objection to development taking place near a family member's home. There appear to be serious and objective planning reasons why development on anything approaching this scale would be inappropriate, unsustainable and contrary to the proper spatial planning of the area.

1. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy and "Grey Belt" Standards

Ashley is a washed-over Green Belt settlement under Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy ("CELPS") Policy PG 3. The open countryside surrounding it is fundamental to its rural character and performs an important Green Belt function.

The land also forms part of the important countryside gap between Cheshire East, including Knutsford and Mobberley, and Greater Manchester, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham. Large-scale development would materially erode that separation and risk precisely the type of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence that Green Belt policy exists to prevent.

In my view, this land performs a particularly important strategic Green Belt role. It helps maintain the remaining separation between the Greater Manchester urban area and the Cheshire settlements and countryside to the south. Development across 291 hectares would not simply extend the village; it would materially weaken the open countryside gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire and undermine one of the core purposes of Green Belt policy, namely preventing unrestricted urban sprawl and the gradual merging of settlements.

Based on the evidence presently available, the site appears to perform important Green Belt functions and there is no clear basis for assuming that it should be treated as Grey Belt for the purposes of national policy assessment. The land remains open, productive countryside, actively used for agriculture and performing a clear Green Belt function. It does not appear to be land that has become detached from its rural setting or ceased to contribute meaningfully to Green Belt purposes.

2. Conflict with the Settlement Hierarchy and Sustainable Development

Ashley falls within the "Other Settlements and Rural Areas" category of the Cheshire East settlement hierarchy under Policy PG 2, where growth is expected to be proportionate to the function and character of the settlement.

From my own experience of visiting Ashley, it is very clearly a rural village rather than a service centre. It does not have the range of schools, medical facilities, shops, employment opportunities and other everyday infrastructure necessary to accommodate development of this magnitude.

Directing major housing growth here therefore appears fundamentally inconsistent with CELPS Policy PG 2 and the broader sustainable development objectives of Policies SD 1 and SD 2. These policies seek to direct development towards sustainable locations, supported by appropriate infrastructure, services and transport connections, whilst making efficient use of land and protecting environmental assets.

Development of this scale appears inconsistent with Policy SD 1, which prioritises growth in accessible and sustainable locations, and Policy SD 2, which requires development to be supported by appropriate infrastructure, minimise travel demand and avoid the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land.

3. The 12 Parcels Must Be Assessed Collectively

A particular concern is that the submission consists of 12 separate parcels which are, in reality, interconnected components of a single strategic landholding extending to some 291.03 hectares.

The cumulative consequences of releasing such a substantial area of land cannot properly be understood if each parcel is considered in isolation. The Council should assess the parcels collectively when considering their effect on Green Belt openness, settlement separation, landscape character, ecological connectivity, transport infrastructure, drainage and utility provision.

The key planning question is not whether individual parcels could accommodate development in isolation, but what the effect would be of releasing a contiguous 291-hectare area of countryside from Green Belt protection as a whole.

4. Environmental, Heritage and Landscape Harm

The proposed parcels collectively represent an enormous area of contiguous open countryside. Developing them would inevitably fragment habitats and wildlife corridors and could affect important nearby environmental assets, including Cotterill Clough SSSI and Nature Reserve.

The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch. These ecological impacts are also relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity), which seeks to conserve and enhance biodiversity assets and ecological networks.

There is also a substantial heritage issue. The agricultural landscape provides the setting for numerous Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The significance of those buildings cannot sensibly be considered separately from the rural landscape in which they sit.

The concern extends beyond individual listed buildings. The open agricultural landscape contributes significantly to the setting and significance of numerous heritage assets across the area. Large-scale development, together with associated roads, lighting and urban activity, would inevitably alter that setting and erode the rural character that contributes to their significance.

This engages CELPS Policy SE 7, which requires the significance of heritage assets and their settings to be conserved and enhanced and requires clear and convincing justification for any harm that may arise.

Development on this scale would also fundamentally alter the landscape character and visual integrity of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.

The scale of the site means that the impact would not be localised. Development could introduce extensive built form into a landscape that presently forms part of a coherent area of open countryside, fundamentally changing its visual character and relationship with the surrounding designated landscapes.

These concerns also engage CELPS Policy SE 4 (The Landscape), which seeks to protect and enhance landscape character and local distinctiveness.

5. Transport, Highway Safety and Aviation Constraints

One of my particular concerns, having visited Ashley, is the obvious mismatch between the existing transport infrastructure and development on the scale being suggested.

The surrounding road network consists substantially of rural roads and lanes, with significant physical constraints and bottlenecks, including crossings over the railway, River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These are not roads designed to accommodate the very substantial additional traffic movements that a major housing development would generate.

Public transport cannot realistically resolve that problem. Ashley station already has a limited rail service and very restricted parking capacity. Of additional concern is that rail service reductions have been discussed as part of wider regional rail planning proposals, potentially reducing service frequency further. This calls into question whether strategic growth in Ashley can realistically be regarded as rail-led or sustainable in transport terms.

The transport limitations identified above also appear difficult to reconcile with CELPS Policy CO 1, which seeks to promote sustainable travel patterns and reduce reliance on private car use.

The site's proximity to Manchester Airport and its location beneath active flight paths also raise obvious issues concerning aircraft noise, aerodrome safeguarding and bird-strike management that require proper consideration.

6. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land

I am also particularly concerned by the proposed loss of such a large, contiguous area of productive farmland.

Available ground testing, including HS2 Phase 2b survey information, indicates that much of the 291.03-hectare site comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.

At a time when food security and the protection of high-quality agricultural land are increasingly important national considerations, permanently removing almost 300 hectares of productive countryside from agricultural use should require exceptionally strong justification.

The agricultural quality of the land is also relevant because it demonstrates that the site remains functioning countryside that continues to perform productive agricultural, landscape and environmental roles. It cannot properly be characterised as redundant or degraded land awaiting redevelopment.

The protection of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land is also reflected in Policy SD 2, which seeks to avoid the permanent loss of Grades 1, 2 and 3a agricultural land unless overriding strategic need can be demonstrated.

7. Flood Risk, Drainage and Infrastructure

There are existing flooding issues affecting parts of the area, particularly towards the M56. Development on this scale would introduce a very substantial amount of impermeable surface into what is currently predominantly open agricultural land.

The cumulative effect on surface-water runoff and the River Bollin catchment must therefore be considered extremely carefully, including the potential consequences for communities downstream.

There are equally serious questions about whether the existing electricity grid, sewerage, drainage and wider utility infrastructure could support development on anything approaching this scale without extensive new infrastructure.

These concerns engage CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management), which seeks to ensure that development appropriately addresses flood risk and water management issues.

8. Reasonable Alternatives Should Be Fully Explored First

Before contemplating the loss of such a strategically important area of Green Belt, the Council should be satisfied that all reasonable alternatives have been fully explored. This includes brownfield sites, previously developed land, opportunities within more sustainable settlements and any lower-performing Green Belt locations.

Given the site's significant Green Belt function, environmental sensitivity, infrastructure constraints and agricultural value, there should be compelling evidence that more sustainable alternatives have been exhausted before any consideration is given to allocating this land for development.

Requested Action

Taken together, these issues are not isolated constraints that can be overcome through detailed design or mitigation. They represent a combination of mutually reinforcing planning concerns including strong Green Belt performance, prevention of urban sprawl, maintenance of settlement separation, environmental and heritage sensitivity, agricultural value, transport limitations, aviation constraints, flood risk and infrastructure deficiencies. The cumulative effect of those constraints raises serious questions about whether this is an appropriate, sustainable or deliverable location for strategic development at all.

As someone with a close family connection to Ashley and who knows the village through regularly visiting my sister there, I am deeply concerned about what development on this scale would mean for Ashley, its surrounding countryside and the wider area.

I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to:

• Assess the 12 parcels collectively as well as individually.
• Consider the cumulative impact of releasing the full 291.03-hectare landholding.
• Record the land as Unsuitable, Unavailable and/or Undeliverable where the evidence supports those conclusions.
• Give particular weight to the site's Green Belt function, role in preventing urban sprawl and settlement coalescence, transport constraints, environmental sensitivity and infrastructure limitations.
• Ensure that all reasonable brownfield, previously developed and more sustainable alternatives have been fully examined before any consideration is given to releasing this land from the Green Belt.
• Not allocate the 291.03-hectare site for strategic development through the Local Plan review.

The current planning framework does not provide a general mechanism for converting Green Belt into development land simply because additional housing is required. The relevant question is whether this particular land is an appropriate location for development.

In Ashley, the evidence points strongly in the opposite direction. The land performs an important strategic Green Belt function, maintains the separation between Cheshire and Greater Manchester, comprises productive agricultural countryside, and is subject to significant environmental, heritage, transport, landscape, infrastructure and flood-risk constraints.

I respectfully urge the Council to conclude that the submission is unsuitable for strategic development and should be excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Yours faithfully,

[Redacted]


I am writing to register my strong objection to the allocation or consideration of the 291.03-hectare site, comprising 12 interconnected parcels of land around Ashley, within the SHELAA or wider Local Plan review.
My sister lives in Ashley and, through visiting her and spending time in the village, I know the area and the surrounding countryside. I have seen first-hand both the very rural nature of Ashley and the limitations of its existing infrastructure. The scale of development apparently contemplated here would, in my view, fundamentally change the character of the village and surrounding landscape.
This is not simply an objection to development taking place near a family member’s home. There appear to be serious and objective planning reasons why development on anything approaching this scale would be inappropriate, unsustainable and contrary to the proper spatial planning of the area.
1. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy and “Grey Belt” Standards
Ashley is a washed-over Green Belt settlement under CELPS Policy PG 3. The open countryside surrounding it is fundamental to its rural character.
The land also forms part of the important countryside gap between Cheshire East, including Knutsford and Mobberley, and Greater Manchester, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham. Large-scale development would materially erode that separation and risk precisely the type of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence that Green Belt policy exists to prevent.
Nor does this appear to be land that could properly be characterised as “Grey Belt”. It is active, productive farmland which performs important Green Belt functions and is subject to significant ecological, heritage, landscape and flood constraints.
2. Conflict with the Settlement Hierarchy and Sustainable Development
Ashley sits at the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy under CELPS Policy PG 2. It simply does not have the infrastructure one would expect to support strategic housing development.
From my own experience of visiting Ashley, it is very clearly a rural village rather than a service centre. It does not have the range of schools, medical facilities, shops, employment opportunities and other everyday infrastructure necessary to accommodate development of this magnitude.
Directing major housing growth here therefore appears fundamentally inconsistent with CELPS Policies SD 1 and SD 2 and the principle that strategic growth should be focused on locations capable of supporting it.
3. Environmental, Heritage and Landscape Harm
The proposed parcels collectively represent an enormous area of contiguous open countryside. Developing them would inevitably fragment habitats and wildlife corridors and could affect important nearby environmental assets, including Cotterill Clough SSSI/Nature Reserve.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
There is also a substantial heritage issue. The agricultural landscape provides the setting for numerous Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. The significance of those buildings cannot sensibly be considered separately from the rural landscape in which they sit.
Development on this scale would also fundamentally alter the landscape character and visual integrity of the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
4. Transport, Highway Safety and Aviation Constraints
One of my particular concerns, having visited Ashley, is the obvious mismatch between the existing transport infrastructure and development on the scale being suggested.
The surrounding road network consists substantially of rural roads and lanes, with significant physical constraints and bottlenecks, including crossings over the railway, River Bollin and Birkin Brook. These are not roads designed to accommodate the very substantial additional traffic movements that a major housing development would generate.
Public transport cannot realistically resolve that problem. Ashley station already has a limited service and very limited commuter parking. The announced reduction in rail frequency further undermines any suggestion that a major development here could be genuinely rail-led or sustainable in transport terms.
The site’s proximity to Manchester Airport and its location beneath active flight paths also raise obvious issues concerning aircraft noise, aerodrome safeguarding and bird-strike management which require proper consideration.
5. Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
I am also particularly concerned by the proposed loss of such a large, contiguous area of productive farmland.
Available ground testing, including HS2 Phase 2b survey information, indicates that much of the 291.03-hectare site comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
At a time when food security and the protection of high-quality agricultural land are increasingly important national considerations, permanently removing almost 300 hectares of productive countryside from agricultural use should require exceptionally strong justification.
6. Flood Risk, Drainage and Infrastructure
There are existing flooding issues affecting parts of the area, particularly towards the M56. Development on this scale would introduce a very substantial amount of impermeable surface into what is currently predominantly open agricultural land.
The cumulative effect on surface-water runoff and the River Bollin catchment must therefore be considered extremely carefully, including the potential consequences for communities downstream.
There are equally serious questions about whether the existing electricity grid, sewerage, drainage and wider utility infrastructure could support development on anything approaching this scale without extensive new infrastructure.
Requested Action
Taken together, these are not minor constraints capable of being addressed through detailed design. They go to the fundamental question of whether this is an appropriate or sustainable location for strategic development at all.
As someone with a close family connection to Ashley and who knows the village through regularly visiting my sister there, I am deeply concerned about what development on this scale would mean for Ashley, its surrounding countryside and the wider area.
I therefore ask Cheshire East Council to assess the 12 parcels collectively, as well as individually, and to record the land as Unsuitable, Unavailable and/or Undeliverable where the evidence supports those conclusions. I strongly urge the Council not to allocate this 291.03-hectare site for strategic development through the Local Plan.