Full text:
Dear Spatial Planning Team,
Please accept this as my formal objection to the potential allocation of land promoted by
Tatton Estate at Ashley, and particularly Parcel 6 (as indicated on the attached satellite view
of the area).
I understand that this is a Call for Sites submission rather than a planning application. That
makes it especially important that the Council identifies the site’s fundamental constraints
now, before Parcel 6 acquires any status as a potential allocation.
Tatton Estate’s current material describes a proposal covering eight parcels, approximately
41.5 hectares, with an indicative capacity of around 1,070 homes. Development on that
scale would transform Ashley from a small rural village into a substantial new settlement. It
should be assessed against Ashley’s actual environmental and infrastructure capacity, rather
than facilities or improvements which are presently only aspirational.
Parcel 6 should be excluded for the following reasons.
1. Strategic Green Belt function
Parcel 6 is open, functioning countryside. It contributes to the openness and rural setting
of Ashley and forms part of the important remaining separation between the urban areas of
Altrincham and Hale and the countryside and settlements towards Mobberley and Knutsford.
Development would introduce housing, roads, lighting and associated infrastructure into an
undeveloped rural field, representing clear countryside encroachment. It would also weaken
the wider Green Belt gap and create a development foothold from which further expansion
could become more difficult to resist.
This is not degraded, previously developed or urbanised land. Its present agricultural and
equestrian use, openness and relationship with adjoining fields demonstrate that it continues
to perform meaningful Green Belt purposes. It should not be treated as “Grey Belt” merely
because it has been submitted to help meet housing needs.
2. Serious and evidenced flood-risk concerns
Parcel 6 experiences substantial seasonal waterlogging and surface-water accumulation.
This is a known, observed characteristic of the land, not a theoretical concern based
solely on flood mapping. [redacted] have
experienced substantial flooding at our properties.
Development would replace permeable land with roofs, roads, drives and other hard
surfaces. It could alter existing flow paths and displace or concentrate water towards
neighbouring homes and land. These risks are heightened by more intense rainfall and
climate change.
Before Parcel 6 could rationally be considered suitable, the Council would need
independent, site-specific evidence addressing its topography, historic surface-water
flooding, drainage capacity, natural flow routes, groundwater conditions, climate-change
allowances and the cumulative effect of developing adjoining parcels. These matters should
not be deferred on the assumption that a future drainage design will necessarily solve them.
3. Established wildlife habitat and ecological connectivity
Parcel 6 is demonstrably used by a rich variety of wildlife. Residents regularly observe
bats, badgers, swans, swallows, owls, parakeets and more than 40 varieties of bird,
together with ducks, geese, foxes, rabbits, hares and other species. Horses currently
graze the field. Its wet areas, hedgerows, field margins, mature vegetation and relationship
with neighbouring gardens and countryside create a connected habitat rather than an
isolated agricultural plot.
Development would risk habitat loss and fragmentation, severance of foraging and
commuting routes due to disturbance from construction, increased traffic and domestic pets,
and substantial changes to the presently dark environment through street and household
lighting.
The Council should require properly timed, multi-season ecological surveys before reaching
any conclusion that Parcel 6 is suitable. These should address bats, badgers and their
routes, breeding and wintering birds, swans and other waterfowl, owls, hedgerows, wet
habitat, amphibians where appropriate, and the cumulative ecological effects of the wider
proposal. A brief or single-season assessment would not adequately capture how the
field is used throughout the year.
4. An unsustainable location for development of this scale
Ashley lacks the services necessary to support substantial residential growth. It has no
mainstream primary or secondary school - [redacted]
and I know [redacted] Ashley only provides one primary and one secondary
school for our catchment area, this will therefore place unsustainable pressure on the current
schooling pathway. There is no GP surgery, pharmacy or general convenience store,
and pedestrian routes are limited and discontinuous. Ashley station exists, but its limited
service, short platform, access arrangements and parking mean that its presence alone
cannot establish that the proposal is sustainable.
Residents already rely heavily on facilities in Trafford and elsewhere outside Cheshire
East for schooling, healthcare, shopping and other everyday needs. This is relevant
because it demonstrates both the absence of adequate local provision and the likelihood that
development would generate extensive cross-boundary journeys, predominantly by car.
Any assessment should therefore identify where new residents would attend school, obtain
healthcare and undertake everyday shopping; how they would reach those services safely;
whether the receiving facilities have capacity; and whether any promised new infrastructure
is viable, funded and capable of being delivered before occupation—not merely illustrated as
part of an early vision.
5. Constrained rural roads and inconsistency with Tatton Estate’s previous evidence
Ashley Road, Back Lane, Mobberley Road and the surrounding network are narrow rural
roads with constrained bridges, limited pavements and restricted opportunities for major
improvement without further damage to the countryside.
Tatton Estate itself previously objected to HS2-related activity on the basis that local
unclassified roads were unsuitable for HGV use. It also raised concerns about lasting harm
to Ashley’s rural setting, landscape effects, hydrology, ecology and protected species.
HS2 construction and residential development are not identical, but the physical and
environmental characteristics identified by the Estate remain the same. Indeed, construction
of approximately 1,070 homes would itself entail prolonged HGV movements, followed by
permanent residential traffic. Given that nothing has changed between Tatton Estates
objecting to the HS2-related development and their current proposal, it stands to reason that
their own objections are very much still valid in relation to their own proposed development -
interestingly, they appear to have left this out of their proposals now that they may stand to
gain from any development that is granted.
6. Parcel 6 is particularly harmful and unnecessary
Parcel 6 has a significant flood history, wildlife value, dark rural character and relationship
with the established village edge (directly adjoining a number of established homes and
stretching to the borderline of Tatton Park) making it especially sensitive.
Without endorsing development elsewhere, Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 appear capable of
being examined as less damaging alternatives before any consideration is given to Parcel 6.
The Council should apply a genuine sequential approach and determine whether housing
requirements can be met on brownfield land, within more sustainable settlements, or on
demonstrably less sensitive land prior to allocating sites such as Parcel 6 for development.
Parcel 6 should not be included simply to maximise the overall capacity or
commercial value of the Estate’s proposal.
Requested action
I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. excludes Parcel 6 from any potential Local Plan allocation;
2. records Parcel 6 as unsuitable for substantial residential or mixed-use development;
3. does not characterise Parcel 6 as “Grey Belt” without a transparent, site-specific
assessment of the contribution it makes to Green Belt purposes;
4. requires independent flood, drainage, ecology, landscape, transport and
infrastructure evidence before reaching any finding of suitability;
5. assesses the cumulative effects of all eight parcels, including the risk of establishing
a basis for further longer-term expansion; and
6. demonstrates that brownfield, urban and less environmentally sensitive alternatives
have been fully examined before contemplating the release of this land.
Parcel 6 is not an empty space awaiting development. It is functioning countryside that
stores water, supports an extensive range of wildlife, contributes to the openness and
identity of Ashley and helps maintain the strategic separation between Greater Manchester
and the Cheshire countryside. Once developed, those functions cannot realistically be
restored.
For these reasons, Parcel 6 should remain undeveloped and within the Green Belt.
