Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Cheshire East Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 adjoining and contiguous parcels extending to approximately 291.03 hectares. Taken together, these parcels represent a development opportunity of a scale wholly disproportionate to the existing settlement of Ashley and one which would fundamentally alter the relationship between the village, the surrounding Cheshire countryside and the Greater Manchester urban area.

The evidence indicates that this land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development. In particular, it is important that the land is assessed correctly under the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is not treated as Grey Belt simply because it is Green Belt land that could potentially contribute towards meeting housing need.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley performs an important strategic Green Belt function
The starting point should be that the Ashley land is Green Belt for a clear spatial reason.
The parish of Ashley is designated as washed-over Green Belt under Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG 3. The designation reflects the particular sensitivity of this rural settlement and the importance of maintaining the openness and rural character of the surrounding countryside.
The current NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt as including:
 checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
 preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another;
 safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
 preserving the setting and special character of historic towns; and
 assisting urban regeneration.
The Ashley land makes a particularly strong contribution to the first three of these purposes.
It is not simply countryside surrounding a small settlement. Its location gives it a strategic spatial function, helping to maintain the remaining open separation between the Greater Manchester urban area, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham, and the settlements and open countryside of Cheshire East, including Mobberley and Knutsford.
Development across 291.03 hectares would therefore not merely enlarge Ashley. It would substantially extend built development southwards and materially weaken the strategic countryside gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire.
This is precisely the type of strategic function for which Green Belt protection exists.

2. The land should not be treated as Grey Belt simply because it is Green Belt
The current NPPF does provide for certain Green Belt land to be identified as Grey Belt. However, this does not create a general presumption that Green Belt land should be released wherever there is a housing requirement.
The assessment must be site-specific.
The relevant question is whether this particular land makes a strong contribution to the relevant Green Belt purposes and whether development would be consistent with the wider requirements of the NPPF.
The Ashley land is:
 open countryside;
 predominantly productive agricultural land;
 contiguous across a very substantial area;
 strategically positioned between major urban and rural settlements;
 important in preventing further outward urban expansion; and
 important in maintaining separation between distinct settlements and communities.
These characteristics point strongly towards the land being high-performing Green Belt, rather than land which has ceased to perform a meaningful Green Belt function.
The Council should therefore require clear evidence demonstrating how the Ashley land could properly be characterised as Grey Belt when assessed against the current NPPF.

3. The land strongly contributes to preventing urban sprawl
The land performs a particularly important role in checking the outward expansion of the Greater Manchester urban area.
The proposed development would create an extensive new development front extending into open Cheshire countryside.
This is not a small, contained extension to an established settlement. At 291.03 hectares, the submission is capable of accommodating development on a scale that would fundamentally alter the area's settlement pattern.
The effect would be to push urban development further into the countryside and establish a much more substantial built presence between Greater Manchester and the Cheshire settlements to the south.
The proposal therefore conflicts directly with the Green Belt purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl.

4. The land is critical to preventing settlement coalescence
The prevention of neighbouring settlements merging is an especially important consideration at Ashley.
The land forms part of the remaining open countryside separating the Greater Manchester settlements to the north from Cheshire settlements to the south.
A 291.03-hectare development would materially reduce that separation.
The issue is not simply whether individual villages would literally become physically joined by buildings. Green Belt policy is intended to prevent the progressive erosion of the open gaps which distinguish and separate settlements.
Once a development of this scale is introduced, the remaining gaps become narrower and more vulnerable to further development pressure.
The long-term consequence would be a significant weakening of the distinction between Greater Manchester and the Cheshire settlement pattern.
This would directly undermine one of the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt.

5. The 12 parcels must be assessed cumulatively
The fact that the submission comprises 12 parcels must not obscure the fact that they are adjoining and collectively extend to 291.03 hectares.
The Council should assess the combined spatial consequences of releasing the land rather than considering each parcel in isolation.
The relevant planning question is not simply whether individual parcels might be capable of accommodating development.
It is:
What would be the effect of releasing this connected 291.03-hectare area from the Green Belt as a whole?
The cumulative consequences for:
 Green Belt openness;
 urban sprawl;
 settlement separation;
 landscape character;
 ecological connectivity;
 transport infrastructure;
 drainage;
 utilities; and
 the remaining Green Belt
would be substantially greater than the effect of considering individual parcels separately.
A piecemeal assessment could therefore fail to recognise the strategic significance of the overall submission.

6. The release would undermine the remaining Green Belt
The current NPPF makes clear that development on Grey Belt land should not fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.
This is highly relevant at Ashley.
The proposed release is not a small, isolated intervention with little consequence for the surrounding Green Belt.
At 291.03 hectares, it would remove a very substantial and strategically positioned area of open countryside from the Green Belt.
It would also create a new development edge and increase development pressure on the remaining countryside.
The Council should therefore assess not only the immediate effect of development on the submitted parcels, but also the effect of removing them from the Green Belt on the integrity and permanence of the remaining Green Belt.

7. There is no justification for treating Ashley as a preferred location for strategic growth
Ashley is a small rural settlement and is not a Principal Town or Key Service Centre.
The scale of development proposed is therefore fundamentally disproportionate to the settlement's existing function and infrastructure.
Cheshire East's spatial strategy seeks to direct significant growth towards locations capable of supporting it through established services, employment opportunities, transport infrastructure and community facilities.
A development of 291.03 hectares around Ashley would represent a fundamental change in the settlement rather than proportionate village growth.
The proposal should therefore be considered against the Council's settlement hierarchy and its established spatial strategy before any question of Green Belt release is entertained.

8. Even if any part of the land were considered Grey Belt, the location remains unsustainable
This is an important distinction under the current NPPF.
Grey Belt status does not automatically make a site suitable for development.
The NPPF requires development on Grey Belt land to be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to the Framework's transport and accessibility policies.
Ashley presents serious concerns in this respect.
The area has:
 limited public transport;
 limited rail provision;
 restricted railway-station parking;
 narrow rural roads;
 constrained bridge crossings;
 limited local services;
 limited employment opportunities;
 significant infrastructure requirements; and
 substantial highway and drainage constraints.
The scale of the proposed development would therefore generate a level of movement and infrastructure demand wholly disproportionate to the existing capacity of the area.
Even if the Council were to consider any portion of the land capable of being characterised as Grey Belt, that would not resolve the separate question of whether a strategic development of this scale represents a sustainable pattern of development.

9. The Council must fully examine reasonable alternatives before sacrificing high-performing Green Belt
The NPPF requires authorities, when considering Green Belt boundary changes, to demonstrate that other reasonable options for meeting identified development needs have been fully examined.
This includes making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield and under-utilised land, optimising density in sustainable locations and considering whether neighbouring authorities can accommodate some of the identified need.
The Council should therefore be able to demonstrate:
1. that all reasonable brownfield and previously developed opportunities have been fully considered;
2. that opportunities to optimise development in existing sustainable settlements have been properly examined;
3. that lower-performing Green Belt opportunities have been assessed; and
4. that the release of this particular high-performing strategic Green Belt location is genuinely necessary.
The question should not simply be whether Ashley can accommodate housing.
It should be:
Why should this strategically important Green Belt land be sacrificed when other reasonable and potentially more sustainable opportunities have not first been exhausted?
That question is particularly important given the exceptionally strong Green Belt functions performed by the Ashley land.

10. High-quality agricultural land reinforces the case for retaining Green Belt protection
The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of a very substantial area of productive agricultural land.
Available evidence, including survey information associated with the HS2 Phase 2b work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is important not only as an agricultural-land consideration in its own right, but because it reinforces the fact that the land remains functioning, productive countryside.
It is not previously developed land or land which has become detached from its rural setting.
It is open working agricultural land performing multiple functions, including agriculture, landscape, ecological connectivity and Green Belt separation.
The permanent conversion of such land to a major urban development should therefore require particularly compelling justification.
This is a further reason why the land should not be treated as an obvious or low-value Green Belt release opportunity.

11. Environmental and landscape constraints reinforce the importance of retaining the Green Belt
The proposed development would permanently transform a large area of open countryside and would have significant implications for landscape character and ecological connectivity.
The land forms part of the wider landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Development of this magnitude would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting and associated infrastructure into an essentially rural landscape.
The area also has important ecological relationships with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, together with surrounding habitats and ecological corridors.
The land provides habitat for Red-Listed bird species identified in the supporting evidence, including grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.
These considerations do not, in themselves, determine whether land is Grey Belt. However, they materially reinforce the conclusion that this is functioning, sensitive open countryside and provide additional planning reasons why its release would be inappropriate.

12. Heritage assets and their settings provide further reasons against release
The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and character of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall.
A development of 291.03 hectares would fundamentally alter that setting through the introduction of large areas of built form, roads, lighting and associated urban activity.
The resulting harm to the rural context of these heritage assets would be a further material consideration against the release of the land.
This engages CELPS Policy SE 7 and the relevant national heritage policies.

13. Transport, highway and aviation constraints further undermine deliverability
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has restricted parking.
The March 2026 parliamentary debate concerning the proposed Cheadle railway station recorded that modelling contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours in order to facilitate Cheadle services.
This is directly relevant when assessing whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for strategic growth.
The surrounding road network is also predominantly rural and constrained, including narrow roads and bridge crossings over the railway, River Bollin and Birkin Brook.
A development of this scale would generate substantial additional traffic and would require significant improvements to infrastructure that is currently constrained.
The land's relationship with Manchester Airport also introduces aviation safeguarding, aircraft-noise and bird-strike considerations which require careful assessment.
These matters materially weaken the case for treating Ashley as an appropriate location for strategic development.

14. Flood risk, drainage and infrastructure deficiencies raise fundamental deliverability concerns
Parts of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-water problems.
Development over 291.03 hectares would introduce extensive impermeable surfaces and consequently increase surface-water runoff.
The potential consequences for the River Bollin catchment and downstream areas require particularly careful consideration.
There are also significant questions regarding electricity-grid capacity, sewerage, drainage and other utilities required to support a development of this magnitude.
These are not merely matters which can be assumed to be resolved at a later stage.
The SHELAA assessment should establish whether the necessary infrastructure is realistically deliverable and whether the required works are proportionate and achievable.

15. The cumulative case is decisive
The principal objection is not based upon one isolated planning constraint.
The Ashley land is affected by a combination of mutually reinforcing considerations:
 strong Green Belt performance;
 prevention of urban sprawl;
 prevention of settlement coalescence;
 protection of open countryside;
 strategic separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire;
 inappropriate scale in relation to Ashley's settlement function;
 limited sustainable transport;
 severe highway constraints;
 aviation safeguarding and noise considerations;
 ecological sensitivity;
 landscape designations;
 heritage assets and their settings;
 Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
 flood and drainage concerns; and
 substantial infrastructure requirements.

Taken together, these factors demonstrate that this is not a conventional development opportunity which happens to be located within the Green Belt.

It is a strategically important area of functioning Green Belt countryside whose release would have consequences far beyond the boundaries of the individual parcels.

The Council should therefore resist any approach which treats the 12 parcels as a collection of unrelated development opportunities.

The appropriate assessment is of the 291.03-hectare strategic landholding and its effect on the wider Green Belt and settlement pattern.

Requested Action

For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Assess the 12 parcels cumulatively as a single strategic landholding when considering their effect on Green Belt openness, sprawl, settlement separation and the remaining Green Belt;
3. Do not identify the land as Grey Belt or as a preferred location for strategic development;
4. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
5. Require any consideration of Green Belt release to demonstrate why all reasonable brownfield, previously developed, urban and lower-performing Green Belt alternatives have been fully examined first; and
6. Exclude all 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage and flood-risk constraints.

The current NPPF 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 appropriate for release.
In Ashley, the evidence points strongly in the opposite direction.

The land makes a substantial contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, particularly by checking urban sprawl, preventing the merging of settlements and safeguarding open countryside. It performs a strategic function in maintaining the separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire and forms part of a coherent area of open, productive countryside.

The scale of the proposed release — 291.03 hectares across 12 contiguous parcels — would magnify these impacts and would risk creating precisely the outward urbanisation and loss of settlement separation that Green Belt policy is intended to prevent.

Even if any part of the land were argued to constitute Grey Belt, the NPPF's separate requirements concerning sustainable location, the effect on the remaining Green Belt, demonstrable unmet need and the examination of reasonable alternatives would remain highly relevant.

The combination of Green Belt performance, settlement hierarchy, transport limitations, infrastructure deficiencies, agricultural value, ecological and landscape sensitivity, heritage considerations, aviation constraints and flood-risk concerns makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.

I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development, that it should remain within the Green Belt, and that all 12 parcels should be excluded from future Local Plan allocations.

Formal Representation: Objection to SHELAA Submission for Land at Ashley
12 Contiguous Parcels – Approximately 291.03 Hectares
To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council
I wish to object formally to the promotion of approximately 291.03 hectares of land at Ashley, comprising 12 adjoining parcels, through the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the Cheshire East Local Plan review.
The central issue is whether land of this character and strategic importance can properly be regarded as Grey Belt under the current National Planning Policy Framework.
In my view, it cannot.
This is not Green Belt which has become urbanised, fragmented or functionally detached from the countryside around it. It is a very large, substantially continuous area of open and productive countryside which still performs clear and important Green Belt functions. In particular, it restrains outward urban expansion, preserves separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire settlements and protects the countryside around Ashley from encroachment.
Those functions arise directly from the land's location, openness and scale. They are not incidental characteristics which can simply be mitigated through development.
The Council should therefore resist any assumption that housing need, land availability or the physical ability to accommodate development is sufficient to justify treating the land as Grey Belt.
The correct question is whether this particular land continues to perform an important Green Belt role.
The evidence strongly indicates that it does.
1. The Grey Belt assessment must begin with what the land actually does
The introduction of Grey Belt policy does not mean that all undeveloped Green Belt land becomes a potential housing allocation.
Nor should the assessment begin with the number of homes which could theoretically be provided.
It should begin with the existing function of the land.
The Ashley submission comprises approximately 291 hectares of predominantly open countryside and agricultural land. The 12 parcels adjoin one another and together occupy a strategically important position between the Greater Manchester urban area and the settlements and countryside of Cheshire East.
The land remains visibly and functionally rural.
More importantly, its openness performs an identifiable planning purpose.
It helps:
 contain the outward spread of built development;
 maintain separation between different settlements and urban areas;
 protect a substantial area of Cheshire countryside from encroachment; and
 maintain a coherent Green Belt between Greater Manchester and the rural settlement pattern to the south.
These characteristics make the site fundamentally different from land which might reasonably be regarded as weak-performing Green Belt.
The Council should therefore require compelling evidence before concluding that any substantial part of this land falls within Grey Belt policy.
2. Ashley is not marginal Green Belt – it is strategically located Green Belt
Ashley should not be assessed simply as a village surrounded by fields.
Its significance is much wider.
The land forms part of the countryside separating Trafford, Hale and Altrincham from the Cheshire settlements and rural areas around Ashley, Mobberley and Knutsford.
That gives the Green Belt here an important strategic function.
Its openness maintains a clear transition between the Greater Manchester conurbation and the more dispersed rural settlement pattern of Cheshire.
Development across a substantial proportion of these 291 hectares would weaken that distinction.
The question is therefore not merely whether development would reduce the amount of countryside immediately around Ashley. It is whether releasing the land would weaken an important strategic separation between two very different settlement areas.
That consideration should carry substantial weight when determining whether the land could genuinely be described as Grey Belt.
3. The land strongly restrains urban sprawl
One of the clearest functions performed by the Ashley Green Belt is the containment of outward urban expansion.
A development approaching the scale represented by this submission would not amount to limited village growth or a modest rounding-off of an existing settlement.
It would create an extensive new area of built development within countryside presently separating Greater Manchester from rural Cheshire.
That would establish a new development front and move substantial built form further into open countryside.
The consequences would include roads, housing, lighting, drainage infrastructure, utilities and associated urban activity across land which is currently predominantly rural.
This is exactly why the scale of the submission matters.
A Green Belt release of this size would have fundamentally different spatial consequences from a small development opportunity contained by existing built form.
The land's role in containing outward growth is therefore a strong reason for concluding that it remains effective Green Belt rather than Grey Belt.
4. Settlement separation is one of Ashley's strongest Green Belt functions
The countryside around Ashley also performs an important role in keeping settlements distinct.
It is not necessary for two towns or villages literally to meet before the Green Belt purpose of preventing coalescence becomes relevant.
The concern is the progressive erosion of the open land separating settlements.
Once major development is introduced into that space:
 the physical gap becomes narrower;
 the perception of separation is weakened;
 remaining countryside becomes more vulnerable to further pressure; and
 subsequent development can appear progressively easier to justify.
Development across the Ashley submission would therefore have consequences beyond the immediate site boundaries.
It would insert a substantial new area of urban development into countryside which presently contributes to maintaining separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire settlements.
This is a particularly powerful reason why the land should not be characterised as Grey Belt.
5. The 12 parcels cannot sensibly be assessed as 12 unrelated sites
Taton Estates have removed some of the parcels towards the end of the consultation period. I find it hard to understand how the subject of a consultation can change during the consultation.
I have also seen the Tatton Estates covering letter for their 2026 submission to the Cheshire East ‘Call for Sites’. They say:
 That land around Ashley for 11,000 houses and 490,000 sqm of commercial floorspace is available.
 The 11,000 house and 490,000 sqm of commercial floorspace plan is “confirmed to be still available”.
 “This representation confirms that the sites are available, suitable, achievable and deliverable for the proposed uses.”
 “For the avoidance of doubt, all of the sites submitted to the 2024 CfS (Call for Sites) Exercise are still available…… to meet more of Cheshire East’s housing needs during and beyond this plan period.”
So, has this covering letter been retracted by Tatton Estates?
The document mentioned in the letter (‘Vision Document’) apparently gives more details on these proposals. Has this document, the ‘Vision Document’ been retracted?
Until confirmed that these documents (their official submissions to the 2026 Call for Sites) have been retracted I will make my comments on the whole 291.03 hectare area.
The way in which the land has been submitted must not obscure its true strategic scale.
Although divided into 12 parcels, those parcels are contiguous and collectively amount to approximately 291.03 hectares.
Their Green Belt function is therefore also interconnected.
A parcel-by-parcel assessment risks reaching conclusions which fail to recognise the consequences of releasing the land cumulatively.
The Council should ask:
What happens to the Green Belt if this connected 291-hectare area is developed?
That assessment should encompass:
 loss of openness;
 urban expansion;
 reduction in settlement separation;
 effects upon the remaining Green Belt;
 landscape change;
 ecological fragmentation;
 transport impacts;
 drainage;
 infrastructure; and
 future development pressure.
It would be artificial to conclude that adjoining parcels have no relationship with one another simply because they have separate SHELAA submission boundaries.
For Grey Belt purposes particularly, the strategic function of the land must be assessed as a whole.
6. Release would weaken the Green Belt which remained
The consequences of development would not stop at the boundary of the submitted land.
Removing any of the parcels from the Green Belt would create extensive new development edges.
Those new edges would inevitably change the relationship between the remaining Green Belt and the built-up area.
Land which currently forms part of a broad and coherent countryside gap could become:
 narrower;
 more enclosed by development;
 less effective in separating settlements; and
 increasingly vulnerable to subsequent development pressure.
The Council therefore needs to consider not merely what would be built on the submitted land, but what releasing the land would do to the effectiveness and permanence of the surrounding Green Belt.
A release cannot reasonably be regarded as an isolated adjustment with no wider spatial consequences.
7. The character of the land reinforces the conclusion that it is functioning Green Belt
The existing condition of the land is relevant.
This is predominantly open, working countryside rather than a heavily developed or urbanised landscape.
All of it remains in agricultural use.
Available evidence indicates substantial areas of Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile agricultural land.
That agricultural function is important in its own right, but it also reinforces the Green Belt case.
The land has not lost its countryside character.
It continues to perform overlapping functions including:
 agricultural production;
 landscape value;
 ecological connectivity;
 settlement separation; and
 Green Belt containment.
That combination provides further evidence that this is not an obvious low-performing Green Belt opportunity.
8. The landscape context is inconsistent with treating the land as a simple development opportunity
The submission occupies a substantial rural landscape rather than an isolated or visually contained parcel.
The wider area is associated with the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton Park Local Landscape Designation.
Development at the scale contemplated would introduce extensive housing, roads, lighting, engineering works and associated infrastructure.
The result would be a fundamental change from open countryside to an increasingly urban landscape.
Landscape considerations do not automatically determine whether land is Grey Belt.
They do, however, provide important evidence about the character, openness and sensitivity of the land being assessed.
In this instance, they reinforce rather than weaken the case for retaining Green Belt protection.
9. Ecological value further demonstrates that this is functioning countryside
The Ashley landscape also forms part of a wider ecological network.
The submitted land has relationships with surrounding habitats and ecological corridors, including Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI.
The area also supports species identified within the evidence base, including Red-Listed birds such as:
 grey partridge;
 tree sparrow; and
 greenfinch.
Urbanisation across a large, connected landholding risks severing habitat corridors, increasing disturbance and reducing ecological connectivity across the wider countryside.
These factors should not be used as a substitute for the Green Belt assessment.
Rather, they reinforce the underlying point: the land remains part of a functioning rural landscape rather than land which has already lost its countryside role.
10. Heritage settings are closely connected with the rural character which Green Belt protects
The Ashley countryside also provides the setting for a substantial number of designated heritage assets.
The open agricultural landscape contributes to the character and setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall.
Development would introduce built form, roads, street lighting, traffic and urban activity into landscapes which presently remain predominantly rural.
That change would inevitably alter the relationship between those heritage assets and their countryside settings.
Heritage impacts provide a separate material planning consideration, but they also demonstrate why the character of this landscape cannot reasonably be dismissed as ordinary land awaiting development.
And before any Tatton Estate land at Ashley is considered suitable for allocation, the Council should first establish the geographical extent, status and relevant provisions of the Tatton Estate Heritage Management Plan (HMP) agreed with Natural England and HMRC. Tatton Estate has itself confirmed to Parliament that 1,626 acres are identified as being of outstanding scenic, scientific and historic interest, and has specifically identified Arden House, Arden Park, North Arden Lodge and Lamb Cottage at Ashley as falling within the HMP. This is directly relevant to the assessment of the promoted sites. The Council should not consider those sites in isolation from the wider estate landscape or without first establishing the extent to which they fall within, adjoin or otherwise relate to land covered by the HMP. It should also establish whether the scale or nature of any proposed development could conflict with, prejudice or undermine the objectives, management requirements or commitments associated with the HMP. Until that relationship has been properly established, it would be premature to conclude that the promoted land is suitable for allocation.
11. Even a Grey Belt conclusion would not establish that Ashley is a sustainable location
There is an important second stage to the argument.
Even if the Council were ultimately to consider that some individual areas could fall within Grey Belt policy, that conclusion would not automatically make them suitable for strategic development.
Ashley is a small rural settlement.
It is not a Principal Town or Key Service Centre and does not presently possess the infrastructure expected of a strategic development location.
The area has:
 limited local services;
 limited public transport;
 an infrequent rail service;
 very restricted parking at Ashley station;
 limited employment opportunities;
 narrow rural roads;
 constrained bridge crossings;
 substantial drainage requirements; and
 major infrastructure needs.
The settlement hierarchy is therefore highly relevant.
The scale of development proposed would not amount to proportionate growth of Ashley. It would fundamentally change the size and function of the settlement.
That raises an obvious question:
Why should strategic growth of this magnitude be directed to a small rural settlement when more sustainable locations are available elsewhere?
12. Transport limitations make the sustainability case particularly difficult
Ashley does not benefit from the type of transport network normally associated with strategic housing growth.
Ashley railway station provides a limited service and has restricted parking capacity.
The March 2026 parliamentary discussion concerning Cheadle station also recorded modelling which contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two hours.
That prospect is directly relevant when assessing whether Ashley represents a genuinely sustainable strategic location.
The road network is similarly constrained.
Routes into and around Ashley are predominantly rural and include important pinch points and bridge crossings over:
 the railway;
 the River Bollin; and
 Birkin Brook.
A very large development would inevitably generate substantial additional traffic through this network.
These are not minor localised issues. They go directly to whether Ashley could support development of the magnitude contemplated.
13. Highway infrastructure cannot simply be assumed to be capable of expansion
Development across 291 hectares would require substantial transport infrastructure.
The SHELAA process should not proceed on the basis that whatever roads, junction improvements or other highway works might eventually prove necessary can simply be provided.
The Council should require evidence that the required infrastructure is:
 technically achievable;
 environmentally acceptable;
 capable of obtaining the necessary approvals;
 financially viable; and
 deliverable within the required timescale.
Where strategic development depends upon major highway intervention, that dependency is relevant to both sustainability and deliverability.
14. Manchester Airport creates additional constraints
Ashley lies close to Manchester Airport and beneath operational flight paths.
That relationship introduces further considerations including:
 aircraft noise;
 aerodrome safeguarding;
 bird-strike management; and
 residential amenity.
A substantial new residential population would therefore be introduced into an area already affected by major aviation infrastructure.
Those issues provide another reason why Ashley should not simply be assumed to represent a straightforward strategic growth opportunity.
15. Flooding and drainage create additional questions over suitability and deliverability
Parts of the wider site, particularly towards the M56, already experience flooding and surface-water issues.
Development across a very large area of presently permeable countryside would introduce extensive:
 roofs;
 roads;
 parking areas;
 driveways; and
 other hard surfaces.
That would significantly alter the existing drainage regime.
The implications for the River Bollin catchment, local watercourses and downstream flood risk would require detailed assessment.
These issues should be examined at the site-selection stage rather than deferred on the assumption that engineering solutions will inevitably be available.
16. Utilities and infrastructure are not presently commensurate with development of this scale
The infrastructure serving Ashley reflects its existing function as a small rural settlement.
A strategic development approaching the scale proposed would require substantial increases in capacity across a range of services, potentially including:
 electricity;
 foul drainage;
 surface-water infrastructure;
 highways;
 schools;
 healthcare;
 public transport; and
 other community infrastructure.
There is a fundamental distinction between saying that infrastructure could theoretically be constructed and demonstrating that the required infrastructure is realistically deliverable.
That distinction is important within a SHELAA assessment.
17. Green Belt release should not begin with Ashley when more appropriate alternatives exist
The Council should also consider the proper sequence of land release.
Before contemplating the loss of strategically important Green Belt, reasonable alternatives should be thoroughly examined.
That should include:
1. suitable brownfield land;
2. previously developed sites;
3. under-used urban land;
4. opportunities for increased density in sustainable locations;
5. locations already supported by strong public transport and services; and
6. genuinely weaker-performing Green Belt sites where release would have materially less impact.
The issue is not simply whether homes can be fitted onto the Ashley land.
The issue is why this particular Green Belt should be released.
Where land makes a substantial contribution to preventing sprawl, maintaining settlement separation and protecting open countryside, there should be compelling evidence that more appropriate alternatives cannot meet the identified need.
18. Housing need does not remove the need to distinguish between stronger and weaker Green Belt
This distinction is particularly important under the current national policy framework.
Grey Belt policy would lose much of its meaning if all Green Belt capable of accommodating housing were automatically treated as suitable for release.
There must remain a meaningful distinction between:
Green Belt which continues to perform important strategic purposes
and
Green Belt whose contribution has become materially weaker.
Ashley falls clearly within the first category.
The land remains open.
Its countryside character is intact.
Its location gives it strategic importance.
Its openness separates settlements.
Its agricultural use remains active.
Its release would enable substantial outward urbanisation.
Those are precisely the characteristics which justify continued Green Belt protection.
19. The scale of release makes the Grey Belt argument particularly difficult
The sheer size of the submission should not be overlooked.
The area proposed is not a minor Green Belt adjustment.
Release at this scale would be transformative.
It could create a development area vastly larger than the existing settlement and materially alter the pattern of development between Greater Manchester and Cheshire.
The larger the release, the greater the importance of considering:
 cumulative loss of openness;
 strategic settlement separation;
 effects upon the remaining Green Belt;
 infrastructure requirements;
 landscape transformation; and
 future development pressure.
The scale of the proposal therefore strengthens the argument for a strategic rather than parcel-by-parcel Green Belt assessment.
20. The combined evidence strongly favours continued Green Belt protection
The Ashley case should ultimately be considered cumulatively.
The strongest objection is not that one isolated technical constraint makes development impossible.
It is that the land performs a clear and important strategic Green Belt function, while simultaneously presenting numerous additional reasons why large-scale development would be inappropriate.
The central Green Belt considerations are compelling:
 the land remains substantially open countryside;
 it restrains outward urban expansion;
 it safeguards the countryside from encroachment;
 it contributes materially to settlement separation;
 it maintains a strategic gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire;
 the 12 parcels collectively form one large and coherent landholding;
 release would weaken the Green Belt remaining around it; and
 development would establish a substantial new urbanisation front.
Those considerations are reinforced by:
 Ashley's limited role within the settlement hierarchy;
 inadequate sustainable transport;
 highway constraints;
 substantial infrastructure requirements;
 aviation considerations;
 BMV agricultural land;
 landscape sensitivity;
 ecology;
 heritage;
 flooding; and
 drainage.
This is therefore not a case in which an otherwise sustainable strategic site happens to lie within Green Belt.
It is a case in which the Green Belt function of the land itself is one of the principal reasons why strategic development would be inappropriate.
Requested Action
I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Retain the 291.03-hectare Ashley land within the Green Belt and do not identify it as Grey Belt;
2. Assess all 12 contiguous parcels cumulatively as one strategic landholding when considering Green Belt function, openness, urban sprawl, settlement separation and the effect upon the remaining Green Belt;
3. Reject any assumption that the ability to accommodate housing or the existence of housing need is sufficient to establish Grey Belt status;
4. Require clear evidence demonstrating why land which performs important Green Belt purposes could properly be regarded as Grey Belt;
5. Require reasonable brownfield, previously developed, urban and genuinely weaker-performing Green Belt alternatives to be fully examined before considering release of the Ashley land;
6. Record the land as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development within the SHELAA assessment; and
7. Exclude all 12 parcels from future strategic housing allocations.
The current planning framework requires the Council to distinguish between Green Belt which genuinely performs a limited role and land whose openness remains strategically important.
Ashley falls firmly into the latter category.
Its value as Green Belt arises from precisely the characteristics which development would remove: openness, countryside character, separation between settlements and resistance to outward urban expansion.
The Tatton Estate submissions would not simply result in the loss of agricultural fields. It would alter the strategic relationship between Greater Manchester and rural Cheshire, establish a major new development front and substantially weaken the Green Belt which remained.
That is incompatible with any suggestion that this is merely weak-performing land suitable for Grey Belt treatment.
Even if Grey Belt status were argued for individual parts of the submission, the separate questions of sustainability, infrastructure, transport, agricultural value, landscape, ecology, heritage, aviation, flooding and deliverability would remain.
Taken together, the evidence provides a strong and coherent case for retaining the land within the Green Belt and excluding the entire 291.03-hectare submission from strategic development consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Mr Marc Knott
[REDACTED]