Full text:
I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to include the 291.03 hectare land submission around Ashley in the Local Plan and SHELAA. I am absolutely shocked that this scale of development is even being considered in a place like Ashley. I know this area well enough to say that this proposal is completely wrong for our village. It is completely inappropriate, and it breaks multiple planning principles that are supposed to protect rural communities like ours.
Ashley is a tiny rural parish. We have no school, no GP surgery, no shops, no employment base, and barely any public transport. The train station is small, with an hourly service at best and this is about to get worse. In the March 2026 Parliamentary debate on the new Cheadle station, the Minister stated: “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.” This means Ashley is likely to drop to one train every two hours, under no circumstances can this be considered a well-connected station. That alone makes this location fundamentally unsuitable for strategic development. It directly contradicts the NPPF requirement for development to be located where public transport is accessible and capable of supporting growth.
The land itself is wash over Green Belt, the most protective form. The NPPF says Green Belt exists to: prevent urban sprawl, stop towns merging, safeguard the countryside from encroachment. This land does all three. It is the narrow gap that prevents Hale, Altrincham, Mobberley and Knutsford from merging. If this land is built over, Greater Manchester will effectively join into Cheshire. That is exactly what the Green Belt is supposed to stop. Calling this “grey belt” is misleading and not supported by any published evidence. Let’s not forget the farmland, this is Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, some of the best in the country. The NPPF says councils should protect BMV land and only use poorer quality land for development where possible. Losing this much high-quality farmland goes against CELPS Policy SE 2 (Agricultural Land) and national policy on food security.
Tatton Estate themselves have told Parliament that this landscape is of outstanding scenic, scientific and historic interest. They have a Heritage Management Plan (HMP) agreed with Natural England and HMRC, covering their land. They specifically identified land in and around Ashley as part of this protected heritage landscape. Tatton used this heritage designation to argue HS2 would damage the estate. Yet now they want to build thousands of houses across the same landscape. The Council must establish whether the included parcels fall within or adjoin the HMP area, whether the development would conflict with the HMP’s objectives, whether the scale of development would undermine the heritage commitments Tatton agreed to. Until that relationship is properly understood it is frankly irresponsible to treat this land as suitable for development. This directly engages CELPS Policy SE 7 (Heritage Assets), which requires the Council to give “considerable weight” to the conservation of heritage settings. The heritage of Ashley Hall and the 19 listed structures around it relies on this rural setting. Covering the area with housing and roads would ruin that forever. Again, this conflicts with SE 7.
The environmental damage would be enormous. Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve, the Bollin Valley, the ancient woodlands, the hedgerows, the wildlife corridors, all of it would be disrupted or destroyed. Red listed bird species live here. This clearly conflicts with CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and the NPPF requirement to protect ecological networks.
The roads here are already unsafe. Narrow rural lanes, tight bends, single lane bridges over the railway and the River Bollin — they cannot cope with thousands more vehicles. This clearly conflicts with CELPS Policy CO 1 (Sustainable Travel) and CO 4 (Travel Plans), which require safe and suitable access for all users. Ashley simply cannot absorb major growth without creating serious highway safety risks.
Then there’s Manchester Airport. This land sits under flight paths, with noise and bird strike risks. Why would anyone think this is a good place for high density housing? This raises issues under CELPS Policy SE 12 (Pollution, Noise and Safety).
Drainage is another major problem. Parts of the area already flood. Paving over 291 hectares with houses, roads and driveways will push more water into the Bollin catchment and increase flood risk for everyone downstream. This conflicts with CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management).
When you add all this up, the Green Belt, the lack of infrastructure, the transport problems, the airport constraints, the environmental and heritage damage, the flood risk, the loss of farmland, and the unresolved heritage obligations under the HMP, it is obvious that this site is completely wrong for development. Therefore I strongly urge the Council to reject the entire 291.03 hectare submission. This proposal would destroy Ashley’s rural character and create a massive urban sprawl where it does not belong.
