Local plan scoping consultation

This submission is regarding the land submitted around Ashley in the 2026 ‘Call for Sites’.

Background:
The main farm [REDACTED], and some land, amount to 79 acres [REDACTED].

General comments about all the parcels submitted for around Ashley

The ‘call for sites’ maps were released by Cheshire East on the 17th of July 2026. The Cheshire East consultation started 4 days after the maps were released i.e. the 21st of July. The consultation runs until 5pm on the 1st of September.

Towards the end of consultation period (25th of August) part of the mapped area was removed. There are a few things to say about this:
How can the subject of a consultation change during the consultation period?
What happens to the submissions made before the map change?
Shouldn’t any changes to mapped areas only be made outside a consultation period?
Subsequently the covering letter to Tatton Estates’ 2026 call for sites has been released by a campaign group (https://keepashleygreen.org/tatton-revealed). In Tatton Estates’ official submission 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So, has this covering letter been retracted by Tatton Estates?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 Has this document, the ‘Vision Document’ been retracted?

Until confirmed that these documents (their official submissions to the 2026 Call for Sites) have been retracted I will make my comments on the whole 291.03 hectare area.

And there is another reason why it is important to consider the whole 291.03 hectares. The fact that the official submission from Tatton Estates to the 2026 ‘Call for Sites’ has become public is very significant. Because now we can see very clearly, in black and white, what their long-term intentions are. If Cheshire East release a small area from the Green Belt then we know that is only a small stepping stone on the journey to their much bigger masterplan. This makes it doubly important that small parcels aren’t considered on their own – they must be considered as part of the much bigger scheme that they have helpfully laid out for us. So, when considering the effect on the Green Belt the effects of the full 291.03 hectares should be assessed.

So, I wish to register a strong formal objection to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare land submission at Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and its consideration through the wider Cheshire East Local Plan review.

The submission consists of 12 adjoining parcels which together form a single, exceptionally large area of approximately 291.03 hectares. The scale of this landholding is wholly out of proportion with the existing rural settlement of Ashley and, if developed, would represent a fundamental change to the relationship between Ashley, the surrounding Cheshire countryside and the Greater Manchester urban area.

There are substantial reasons why the land should be regarded as unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development. However, the most fundamental issue is the proper application of the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly the question of whether this land can properly be regarded as Grey Belt. The evidence indicates that it cannot. This is functioning Green Belt countryside which continues to perform important and identifiable Green Belt purposes, and its strategic role would be seriously compromised by development.

The Council should therefore approach any suggestion of Grey Belt designation with particular caution and assess the land on its actual characteristics and strategic function, rather than treating its potential contribution to housing supply as a reason for release.


1. Grey Belt is not a general route for releasing Green Belt land for housing

The current NPPF makes provision for some Green Belt land to be identified as Grey Belt. That policy should not, however, be interpreted as meaning that Green Belt land becomes Grey Belt simply because it is capable of accommodating development or because additional housing land is required.

The distinction is fundamental. The question is not whether the Ashley land could physically accommodate housing. The question is whether this particular land has characteristics and performs functions which mean that it should continue to be protected as Green Belt.

The Ashley land plainly does.

It is open countryside; it is predominantly productive agricultural land; the parcels are physically contiguous; and the land occupies a strategically important position between the Greater Manchester urban area and the settlements and open countryside of Cheshire East. Its openness is not incidental. It is the very feature which allows it to perform important Green Belt functions.

The land helps check the outward expansion of the Greater Manchester urban area, maintains separation between distinct settlements and safeguards open countryside from encroachment. These are core Green Belt purposes. There is therefore a fundamental difference between this land and a genuinely weak-performing area of Green Belt which has become enclosed, previously developed, urbanised or otherwise lost much of its strategic role.

It would be inappropriate to use Grey Belt policy as a simple mechanism for turning strategically important Green Belt into development land. If housing need alone were sufficient to justify that approach, the protection afforded to high-performing Green Belt would be substantially weakened.

In this case, the evidence points in the opposite direction: the Ashley land continues to perform a strong Green Belt function, and its release would directly undermine the purposes for which it is designated.

2. Ashley's strategic location makes its Green Belt function particularly important

The parish of Ashley is designated as washed-over Green Belt under Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG 3. That designation reflects the sensitivity of this rural settlement and the importance of retaining the openness and rural character of the surrounding countryside.

The 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 has a particularly strong relationship with the first three of these purposes.

Its significance cannot properly be understood by looking only at the boundary of Ashley village. The land forms part of a much wider strategic area of open countryside between the Greater Manchester urban area, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham, and Cheshire East settlements including Mobberley and Knutsford.

That makes the land important as a strategic buffer and separation area. Its continued openness helps prevent the progressive outward spread of the Greater Manchester urban area and maintains a clear distinction between the urban and rural settlement patterns to the north and south.

This strategic role is highly relevant to the Grey Belt question. Land which actively performs these functions should not be assumed to have become Grey Belt simply because development on it might be technically possible. The Council should instead recognise that the openness and location of the land are precisely what make its Green Belt contribution significant.

3. A 291.03-hectare release would create a major new urbanisation front

The scale of the proposal is itself highly significant.

This is not a modest edge-of-village development or a contained rounding-off of an existing settlement. The 12 parcels collectively extend to 291.03 hectares. Development at anything approaching that scale would create a substantial new built frontage extending into open Cheshire countryside.

The consequence would be a marked outward movement of urban development from the Greater Manchester area and a fundamental alteration of the existing settlement pattern.

This is directly contrary to the Green Belt purpose of checking unrestricted sprawl. It would also be difficult to reconcile such an outcome with any conclusion that the land is weak-performing Green Belt.

The Council should therefore consider the actual spatial consequence of releasing the land, rather than assessing whether individual parts might appear developable in isolation.

4. The land provides an important barrier against settlement coalescence

The prevention of neighbouring settlements merging is another particularly strong reason for retaining the land within the Green Belt.

The countryside around Ashley provides part of the remaining open separation between the Greater Manchester settlements to the north and the Cheshire settlements to the south. A development covering 291.03 hectares would substantially erode that separation.

Coalescence does not require two settlements to become physically joined by a continuous line of buildings. The planning concern is the gradual loss of the open gaps and countryside which distinguish one settlement from another. Once a major development is introduced into that gap, the remaining open areas become narrower and more vulnerable to subsequent development pressure.

The longer-term effect would therefore be more than the enlargement of Ashley. It would contribute to the progressive urbanisation of the area between Greater Manchester and Cheshire and weaken the distinction between their respective settlement patterns.

That is precisely the type of incremental erosion which Green Belt policy seeks to prevent and is a further reason why the land should not be regarded as Grey Belt.

5. The 12 parcels must be viewed together, not as separate development opportunities

The submission should be assessed as a single strategic landholding.

Although it has been presented as 12 parcels, those parcels adjoin one another and collectively cover 291.03 hectares. Considering them separately risks obscuring the scale and strategic consequences of the proposal.

The relevant question is therefore not whether one parcel, or another, could accommodate development without appearing unacceptable on its own. The question is what would happen to the Green Belt and the wider settlement pattern if this entire connected area were released.

The cumulative effects would extend to:
• loss of Green Belt openness;
• outward urban expansion;
• erosion of settlement separation;
• landscape character;
• ecological connectivity;
• transport infrastructure;
• drainage;
• utilities; and
• the integrity of the Green Belt which remained.

This cumulative approach is particularly important when considering Grey Belt. A series of adjoining parcels cannot be treated as though they are unrelated simply because they have separate submission boundaries. Their combined spatial function is greater than the sum of the individual sites.

6. Releasing the land would weaken the wider Green Belt, not simply affect the submitted parcels

The current NPPF also requires consideration of whether development on Grey Belt land would fundamentally undermine the purposes, taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.

That consideration is especially important here.

The proposed release would remove a very substantial, strategically positioned area of open countryside from the Green Belt. It would establish a new development edge and place increased pressure on the countryside that remained outside the proposed development.

The Council should therefore look beyond the immediate effect of construction within the 12 parcels. It should consider what removing this strategic area would do to the coherence, permanence and effectiveness of the remaining Green Belt.

A release of 291.03 hectares cannot reasonably be described as a minor or isolated intervention. It would alter the spatial structure of the area and could create the conditions for further outward development.

This is another reason why the land should not be treated as Grey Belt merely on the basis that housing could be accommodated on it.

7. Ashley is not an appropriate location for strategic growth

Ashley is a small rural settlement rather than a Principal Town or Key Service Centre. A strategic development extending across 291.03 hectares would therefore be fundamentally disproportionate to the settlement's existing role and infrastructure.

Cheshire East's spatial strategy seeks to direct significant growth towards locations where established services, employment, transport infrastructure and community facilities can support it. Development of this magnitude at Ashley would represent a transformation of the settlement rather than proportionate village growth.

The settlement hierarchy and the Council's established spatial strategy should therefore be considered before any decision is made to contemplate Green Belt release.

8. Grey Belt designation would not, in any event, overcome the sustainability problems

Even if any part of the land were considered capable of being classified as Grey Belt, that would not automatically make it suitable for strategic development.

The NPPF requires development on Grey Belt land to be in a sustainable location, including consideration of the Framework's transport and accessibility policies.

Ashley presents significant difficulties:
• 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.

A development of this scale would generate substantial additional movement and infrastructure demand in an area whose existing capacity is already constrained.

Grey Belt status cannot therefore be treated as the end of the planning assessment. Even on that assumption, the Council would still need to establish whether this is a genuinely sustainable and deliverable location for strategic growth.

9. High-performing Green Belt should not be released until reasonable alternatives have been exhausted

The NPPF requires authorities considering Green Belt boundary changes to demonstrate that other reasonable options for meeting development needs have been properly examined.

This includes making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield and previously developed 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 within existing sustainable settlements have been properly examined;
3. that lower-performing Green Belt opportunities have been assessed; and
4. that releasing this particular area of strategically important Green Belt is genuinely necessary.

The key question is not simply whether Ashley can accommodate housing. It is why this particular area of functioning, strategically important Green Belt should be sacrificed if other reasonable and potentially more sustainable opportunities have not first been exhausted.

That question carries particular weight because the land's Green Belt contribution is demonstrably strong.

10. Productive agricultural land reinforces the case against release

The proposed development would permanently remove a 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.

The significance of this extends beyond agricultural land value alone. The land remains active, functioning countryside rather than previously developed land or an isolated area which has already become detached from its rural surroundings.

It performs several overlapping functions: agricultural production, landscape value, ecological connectivity and Green Belt separation.

The permanent urbanisation of such land would therefore require particularly compelling justification and provides further evidence that this is not an obvious or low-value Green Belt release opportunity.

11. Landscape and ecological considerations add to the case for retaining the land

Development across this area would permanently change a substantial tract of open countryside and would have significant consequences 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.

A development of the proposed magnitude would introduce extensive buildings, roads, lighting and associated infrastructure into a predominantly rural landscape.

The area also has important ecological relationships with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI, together with surrounding habitats and ecological corridors. Red-Listed bird species identified in the supporting evidence include grey partridge, tree sparrow and greenfinch.

These matters do not determine Grey Belt status on their own. They do, however, reinforce the evidence that the land remains functioning and sensitive open countryside and provide additional planning reasons why its release would be inappropriate.

12. Heritage considerations provide an additional constraint

The open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and character of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall.

Development across 291.03 hectares would substantially change that setting through extensive built form, roads, lighting and associated urban activity.

The resulting harm to the rural context of these heritage assets is a further material consideration against release and engages CELPS Policy SE 7 and relevant national heritage policies.

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.

13. Transport, highway and aviation issues further weaken the case for development

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 to facilitate Cheadle services. This is relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a sustainable location for strategic growth.

The surrounding road network is predominantly rural and constrained, including narrow roads and bridge crossings over the railway, River Bollin and Birkin Brook.

A development on this scale would generate significant additional traffic and require substantial infrastructure improvements.

The proximity to Manchester Airport also introduces aviation safeguarding, aircraft-noise and bird-strike considerations which require careful assessment.

Together, these matters further undermine the case for strategic development.

14. Flooding, drainage and utilities present further 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 create extensive impermeable surfaces and increase surface-water runoff. The implications for the River Bollin catchment and downstream areas require careful examination.

There are also significant questions concerning electricity-grid capacity, sewerage, drainage and other utilities necessary to support development of this magnitude.

These matters should not simply be deferred on the assumption that they can be resolved later. The SHELAA process should establish whether the necessary infrastructure is realistically deliverable and whether the works required would be proportionate and achievable.

15. The combined evidence points decisively towards retaining the land in the Green Belt

The objection is not dependent upon any single constraint. The case is cumulative, and the individual considerations reinforce one another.

Most importantly, the land continues to perform strong Green Belt functions. It checks outward urban expansion, helps prevent settlement coalescence, safeguards open countryside and maintains strategic separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire. Those functions are reinforced by the land's scale, its contiguity, its agricultural use and its position within a wider coherent area of countryside.

Against that background, the argument for Grey Belt designation is particularly weak. This is not a marginal parcel of land which has lost its Green Belt purpose. It is a 291.03-hectare area of open, productive countryside whose strategic openness is central to its planning function.

Its release would create a substantial new urban development front, reduce the separation between settlements, weaken the remaining Green Belt and increase pressure for further development. Those are not incidental effects; they go directly to the purposes of Green Belt policy.

The other constraints then add further weight: Ashley's settlement role, limited sustainable transport, highway limitations, infrastructure deficiencies, aviation considerations, ecological and landscape sensitivity, heritage impacts, BMV agricultural land and flood and drainage concerns.

The Council should therefore resist any approach which treats the 12 parcels as unrelated development opportunities. The appropriate assessment is of the 291.03-hectare landholding as a whole and of its strategic effect on Green Belt, settlement pattern and the surrounding countryside.

Requested Action

Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable, Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
Assess the 12 parcels cumulatively as one strategic landholding when considering their effect on Green Belt openness, urban sprawl, settlement separation and the remaining Green Belt;
Do not identify the land as Grey Belt or as a preferred location for strategic development;
Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation within the Local Plan review;
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
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 remains whether this particular land is appropriate for release.

In Ashley, the evidence strongly indicates that it is not.

The land continues to perform important Green Belt purposes, particularly checking urban sprawl, preventing settlement coalescence and safeguarding open countryside. It also maintains strategic separation between Greater Manchester and Cheshire and forms part of a coherent area of open, productive countryside.

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

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

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 the land fundamentally inappropriate for strategic development.

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