Local plan scoping consultation

Response by Hale Civic Society to the Cheshire East Call for Sites
Hale Civic Society wishes to formally object to the proposed large-scale development of land around Ashley submitted as part of the Cheshire East Call for Sites.
We consider that the scale and location of the proposals are fundamentally inappropriate and that the sites should be assessed as unsuitable and undeliverable for large-scale development.
Our objection is based not on a single issue, but on the cumulative effect of Green Belt loss, the destruction of productive agricultural land, an unsustainable settlement location, severe transport constraints, congestion, pressure on Hale and surrounding communities, landscape and heritage impacts, ecological damage, flooding and drainage concerns, infrastructure deficiencies and Manchester Airport constraints.
The proposals would represent a fundamental and irreversible change to the character of Ashley and the wider area.
1. Green Belt and the strategic countryside buffer
The land around Ashley performs an important strategic Green Belt function.
It forms a vital, narrow buffer between Hale and Trafford to the east and Knutsford and Mobberley to the west. This open countryside prevents the gradual merging of settlements and provides an important barrier against further urban sprawl.
It provides what can appropriately be described as Manchester's breathing space — a valuable area of open countryside between the Greater Manchester urban area and the Cheshire countryside.
The importance of this Green Belt should not be underestimated simply because the area is relatively narrow. Its strategic role is precisely to maintain separation between established settlements and prevent the outward expansion of the Greater Manchester conurbation into Cheshire.
The land proposed for development is predominantly open, working farmland. It is not previously developed land and does not make a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes.
It therefore should not be treated as Grey Belt simply because it has been identified as a potential development opportunity.
The permanent loss of this strategic Green Belt would fundamentally alter the relationship between Hale, Ashley, Mobberley and Knutsford and would remove an important remaining countryside buffer.
Once this gap has been developed, it cannot realistically be recreated.
2. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
Hale Civic Society is deeply concerned about the permanent loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
The Ashley area contains extensive high-quality agricultural land, including Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a soils.
This is productive working farmland, not land of marginal agricultural value.
The permanent conversion of BMV agricultural land to housing, roads, driveways, drainage infrastructure and associated development represents an irreversible loss of an important national resource.
Agricultural land is finite. Once developed, its productive capacity and agricultural function are effectively lost.
The importance of food security, soil quality and agricultural resilience makes the protection of productive farmland increasingly important.
Hale Civic Society therefore considers the loss of BMV land to be a major reason why these sites should not be taken forward, particularly where alternative and more sustainable locations exist.
3. Settlement hierarchy and sustainable development
Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for development on the scale being proposed.
Ashley is a small rural parish with very limited facilities and very little public transport. It does not possess the infrastructure, services or connectivity required to accommodate major strategic growth.
There are no adequate local facilities to support a development of this magnitude.
Residents would need to travel elsewhere for employment, education, healthcare, shopping and many other everyday needs.
This would inevitably create substantial car dependency.
Such a pattern of development is contrary to the basic principles of sustainable development, which seek to locate significant growth where residents have access to services, facilities, employment and sustainable transport.
Development should be focused on appropriate urban and service centres rather than placing thousands of additional residents in a rural location that lacks the infrastructure to support them.
4. Ashley railway station does not make the proposal sustainable
The existence of Ashley railway station should not be used as justification for describing the area as well connected.
The station has limited service capacity and cannot provide anything approaching the level of public transport required to support development on this scale.
There is also very limited bus provision.
The lack of a comprehensive public transport network means that the overwhelming majority of residents would be dependent upon private vehicles.
The railway therefore does not solve the fundamental transport problem.
A railway station with limited services cannot compensate for inadequate local facilities, poor bus connectivity and a constrained rural highway network.
5. Severe highway constraints
The existing road network is wholly inadequate to accommodate the level of traffic that would be generated by large-scale development.
The surrounding area contains:
• narrow rural lanes;
• narrow and constrained railway bridges;
• restricted road approaches;
• roads already used heavily by cyclists and pedestrians;
• limited capacity at key junctions; and
• established congestion on routes towards the A538 and M56.
Every additional development would place further pressure on this already constrained network.
The problem cannot be addressed simply by constructing new roads within the development itself.
The wider network would still have to accommodate thousands of additional journeys.
6. Ashley Road railway crossings – a critical bottleneck and threat to Hale village
A further and particularly serious concern is the bottleneck effect created by the railway crossings on Ashley Road and the surrounding road network.
Ashley Road already has to accommodate traffic movements across railway infrastructure that creates unavoidable points of interruption and queuing. These are not conventional junctions that can simply be widened to accommodate substantially greater traffic volumes.
The problem becomes significantly more serious when increased road traffic is combined with railway movements.
A major development would generate thousands of additional vehicle journeys, while increased or changing rail services would result in more frequent periods when road traffic is stopped at the crossings.
The consequence would be a compounding effect:
more houses → more vehicles → more traffic queues → more interaction with railway crossings → longer delays → increased congestion throughout the surrounding road network.
This has the potential to create a serious and recurring bottleneck on Ashley Road, with queues extending into the village and onto connecting roads.
The effect would not be confined to motorists.
Congestion and queuing would affect buses, pedestrians, cyclists, delivery vehicles, agricultural traffic and emergency services. It would also make journey times increasingly unpredictable and could result in traffic diverting onto unsuitable residential and rural roads in an attempt to avoid the congestion.
The interaction between road traffic and railway movements therefore needs to be assessed as a combined network constraint, rather than considering road capacity and railway capacity separately.
Effect on the viability of Hale village
This issue has particular significance for Hale village.
Hale's local businesses depend upon customers being able to access the village conveniently. The village already has limited parking capacity, and congestion and queuing on the approaches can make access difficult.
If Ashley development generates a substantial increase in traffic passing through Hale, while railway crossings continue to create regular interruptions to traffic flow, the resulting congestion could make Hale increasingly difficult to access.
This could have a direct economic impact on the village.
Customers may choose to avoid Hale because of unreliable journey times, congestion and difficulty finding parking. Deliveries could become more difficult and less reliable, while businesses could face increased pressure from reduced footfall and declining passing trade.
The combination of traffic congestion and constrained parking therefore represents more than a highway issue. It is potentially a threat to the commercial viability and vitality of Hale village.
Limited parking capacity
The impact on parking must also be considered.
Hale already operates within a physically constrained village environment, where opportunities to provide significant additional parking are limited.
Additional traffic and increased demand for parking generated by development around Ashley would place further pressure on the existing parking stock.
This could result in:
• increased competition for limited parking spaces;
• longer periods spent searching for parking;
• additional traffic circulating through the village;
• increased congestion on already constrained roads;
• greater difficulty for local residents andvisitors;
• difficulties for customers accessing local businesses; and
• additional pressure on employees and businesses dependent upon convenientaccess.
Adding substantial development without providing a corresponding and realistic increase in transport and parking capacity risks creating a cycle in which more traffic creates more congestion, congestion increases parking pressure, and parking pressure generates yet more traffic circulating through the village.
A cumulative transport failure
The railway crossings, narrow bridges, rural lanes, limited parking and existing congestion must therefore be considered together.
The issue is not whether each individual element can technically accommodate a small additional increase in traffic.
The issue is what happens when thousands of additional vehicle movements are introduced into a network that already contains several unavoidable physical bottlenecks.
Hale Civic Society considers that the combination of:
• increased traffic from large-scale development;
• railway crossing interruptions;
• increased rail movements;
• narrow railway bridges;
• constrained rural roads;
• congestion on the A538 and M56;
• limited parking within Hale;
• increased demand for local services; and
• additional traffic travelling through Hale village
could result in severe and persistentcongestion and a significant deteriorationin the accessibility, vitality and economicviability of Hale and surrounding communities.
This cumulative effect must be fully assessed before any of the Ashley sites can reasonably be considered suitable or deliverable.
7. Impact on Hale village
Hale village would be one of the communities most directly affected by the consequences of large-scale development around Ashley.
Hale already serves as an important service and transport centre for the surrounding rural area. Its roads, shops, healthcare facilities, schools, parking provision and other services are not capable of absorbing unlimited additional demand.
Additional development at Ashley would inevitably generate additional journeys into Hale for shopping, education, healthcare, employment, rail travel and other services.
This would increase:
• traffic congestion;
• pressure on parking;
• pressure on local services;
• demand for healthcare and dental services;
• pedestrian and cyclist conflict with increasing traffic;
• pressure on local roads and junctions; and
• pressure on community facilities.
The narrow road connections between Ashley and Hale would become increasingly congested, particularly during peak periods.
The additional traffic would also compound existing congestion on routes connecting Hale with the A538 and M56.
Hale should not be expected to act as the service and transport infrastructure for a major development located outside the village and in a fundamentally rural setting.
The consequences would extend beyond Hale itself.
8. Impact on surrounding communities
The effects would not be limited to Ashley and Hale.
Additional traffic and population would affect surrounding communities including Hale Barns, Mobberley, Knutsford and other neighbouring settlements.
Residents in these communities would experience increased pressure on roads, junctions, parking, healthcare, schools, shops and other services.
The development would create a substantial increase in journeys across an already interconnected but constrained rural road network.
This is why the proposals must be considered cumulatively, rather than as a collection of individual sites.
The combined impact of multiple sites could be substantially greater than the impact of any one site considered in isolation.
9. A538 and M56 congestion
The A538 and M56 are already important and heavily used transport corridors.
Large-scale development around Ashley would inevitably increase traffic travelling towards these routes.
Additional commuting, school, shopping, airport and service-related journeys would place further pressure on the network.
The resulting congestion would have consequences not only for Ashley but for Hale, Hale Barns, Mobberley and the wider surrounding area.
A development that is fundamentally dependent on already congested strategic roads cannot reasonably be described as sustainable simply because those roads exist.
10. Landscape and heritage
The Ashley countryside has considerable landscape, cultural and historic importance.
Large-scale development would cause harm to:
• two Local Landscape Designations;
• Ashley Hall and its historic setting;
• the settings of approximately 19 Grade II listed buildings;
• historic Tatton Estate field patterns;
• historic hedgerows and field boundaries; and
• the wider rural character and setting of the area.
The significance of heritage assets is not confined to the buildings themselves.
Their setting and relationship with the surrounding countryside form an important part of their character and significance.
The existing open fields, hedgerows and historic agricultural landscape provide that setting.
Replacing these fields with housing estates, roads, street lighting, car parks and associated infrastructure would permanently change the historic landscape.
Tree planting and landscaping cannot recreate the historic agricultural landscape that would be lost.
11. Ecological impacts
The area also has important ecological value.
Large-scale development would place additional pressure on:
• Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI;
• ancient woodland;
• trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders;
• hedgerows;
• agricultural habitats; and
• established wildlife corridors.
The fields and hedgerows form part of a wider ecological network.
Development would risk fragmenting habitats, disrupting wildlife movement and reducing biodiversity.
The loss of hedgerows and agricultural land would also remove important habitats for protected species.
These impacts need to be considered cumulatively across the entire area.
12. Flooding and the River Bollin
There are significant concerns regarding surface-water drainage and flooding.
The River Bollin and its catchment are sensitive to increased surface-water pressures.
Large-scale development would introduce substantial areas of impermeable surface, including roads, roofs, driveways and car parks.
This could alter existing drainage patterns and increase surface-water runoff.
Any development of this magnitude would therefore require very substantial drainage infrastructure and robust evidence demonstrating that it would not increase flood risk to existing communities.
The burden of additional surface-water runoff must not simply be transferred downstream to neighbouring communities.
13. Infrastructure capacity
There is a fundamental question about whether the necessary infrastructure exists — or could realistically be delivered — to support development on this scale.
Particular concerns include:
• schools;
• healthcare;
• GP and dental capacity;
• utilities;
• sewage and foul drainage;
• surface-water drainage;
• roads;
• public transport;
• community facilities; and
• emergency services.
It would be unacceptable for development to proceed on the assumption that infrastructure will somehow be provided afterwards.
Infrastructure should be demonstrated to be available and capable of supporting the development before the sites can reasonably be considered deliverable.
14. Manchester Airport constraints
The proximity of Manchester Airport createsadditional constraints.
The area is affected by operational aircraft noise contours and aviation-relatedconsiderations, including bird-strike safety zones.
These constraints need to be fully considered when assessing the suitability of large-scale residential development.
The interaction between housing, aircraft noise, airport operations and bird-strike risk creates additional planning and safety considerations that do not exist to the same extent in many other potential development locations.
15. Cumulative impact
Perhaps the most important issue is the cumulative nature of the proposals.
The sites should not be assessed as though they were unrelated individual developments.
Taken together, the proposals would representa major expansion of development intoopen countryside.
The cumulative consequences would include:
• significant loss of Green Belt;
• loss of BMV agricultural land;
• increased urbanisation;
• increased traffic;
• worsening congestion;
• greater pressure on Hale village;
• pressure on Hale Barns, Mobberley andKnutsford;
• increased car dependency;
• pressure on schools and healthcare;
• additional drainage and flood risk;
• loss of wildlife habitat;
• landscape degradation;
• harm to heritage assets;
• pressure on airport-related safety constraints; and
• permanent change to the character of the area.
The combined impact is far greater than the impact of any individual site.
16. Impact on thecharacter of the area
The proposals would fundamentally change the relationship between Ashley, Hale and the surrounding countryside.
The existing landscape provides a cleartransition from the urban environment ofGreater Manchester into rural Cheshire.
Large-scale development would progressively urbanise that transition.
It would erode the distinction betweensettlements and countryside and create the very form of urban expansion thatGreen Belt policy is intended to prevent.
The resulting development would not simply add houses.
It would bring roads, lighting, vehicles, infrastructure, utilities, drainage, parking, noise and increased activity into an areawhose defining characteristics are its openness, agricultural use and rural character.
That transformation would be permanent.
Conclusion
Hale Civic Society considers that the proposed Ashley sites are wholly inappropriate for large-scale development.
The combination of constraints is overwhelming.
The proposals would result in:
• the loss of strategically important Green Belt;
• erosion of the vital countryside bufferbetween Hale/Trafford and Knutsford/Mobberley;
• loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
• unsustainable development in a small rural parish;
• high levels of forced car dependency;
• inadequate public transport;
• severe highway constraints;
• railway-crossing bottlenecks and increased queuing;
• additional congestion on the A538 and M56;
• unacceptable additional traffic through Halevillage;
• increased pressure on Hale's shops, healthcare, schools, parking and community facilities;
• potential damage to the commercial viabilityand vitality of Hale;
• wider impacts on Hale Barns, Mobberley, Knutsford and neighbouring communities;
• harm to two Local Landscape Designations;
• harm to Ashley Hall and the settings of approximately 19 Grade II listed buildings;
• loss of historic Tatton Estate hedgerows and field patterns;
• pressure on Cotterill Clough SSSI/Nature Reserve;
• impacts on ancient woodland, protected trees and wildlife corridors;
• increased surface-water and River Bollindrainage concerns;
• inadequate existing infrastructure;
• Manchester Airport noise and bird-strikeconstraints; and
• irreversible damage to the character andidentity of Ashley and the surroundingcountryside.
This is not a matter of resisting appropriate and sustainable growth.
It is a matter of ensuring that development is directed to the right locations.
There are more appropriate locations wherehousing can be delivered alongside existinginfrastructure, public transport, employment, services and established communitieswithout destroying productive farmland and strategically important Green Belt countryside.
Hale Civic Society therefore respectfully but firmly asks Cheshire East Council to reject the proposed Ashley sites for large-scale development and not take them forward for allocation in the new Local Plan.
The protection of Ashley's countryside is notonly important to Ashley itself. It is essential to protecting the separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire, maintainingthe character of Hale and neighbouringcommunities, safeguarding productive agricultural land, protecting heritage and ecological assets, and preserving theremaining open countryside that provides an essential environmental and recreational resource for the wider area.
Hale Civic Society believes that these sites should be assessed as unsuitable and undeliverable for large-scale development.