Local plan scoping consultation

To whom it may concern

I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of the 291.03-hectare land submission around
Ashley (12 adjoining sites totalling 291.03 hectares) in the Cheshire East Local Plan / SHELAA.
1. Conflict with Green Belt Policy (North Cheshire Green Belt & 'Wash-Over' Status):
• Wash-Over Green Belt: The parish of Ashley is designated as "wash-over" Green Belt—
the most protective form of rural Green Belt classification.
• Regional Strategic Buffer: Established in the 1950s specifically to prevent urban sprawl,
Ashley forms the crucial narrow green buffer separating South Manchester and Trafford
(Hale, Hale Barns, Altrincham) from villages and towns in Cheshire East (Mobberley,
Knutsford).
• Failure of the National "Grey Belt" Test: Under national policy, Green Belt land can only
be considered for release if it meets the definition of "Grey Belt" (previously developed
brownfield land or land that makes a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes).
Open, working farmland across Ashley fails this test.
• Direct Conflict with Core Green Belt Purposes (NPPF):
o Purpose A (Check Unrestricted Sprawl): Serves as the primary barrier preventing the
Manchester conurbation from expanding southwards.
o Purpose B (Prevent Towns Merging): Building across these 291.03 hectares would
physically merge Greater Manchester settlements with Cheshire villages and
towns.
o Purpose C (Safeguard the Countryside): Protects active, open agricultural land from
suburban encroachment. Protecting this land aligns with national policy to
preserve prime agricultural resources.
2. Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy: Ashley is a small, rural parish with very little public
transport, primary infrastructure, medical facilities, or local employment. Allocating large-scale
development here violates sustainable development principles, which require growth to be
focused on Tier 1 and Tier 2 urban centres.
3. Highways & Safety: The surrounding rural road network, constrained by narrow railway
bridges and single-lane pinch points, cannot safely accommodate thousands of additional vehicle
movements toward the A538 and M56.
4. The land falls directly within flight path operational noise contours and bird-strike hazard
safety zones, making high-density housing unsuitable.
5. Drainage & Utilities: The area lacks deep sewer, grid, and surface water drainage capacity,
presenting high surface-water flood risks to the River Bollin catchment.
6. Loss of High-Grade Agricultural Land (BMV): Independent soil surveys (including HS2 Phase
2b data) confirm the land contains Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV)
agricultural land, which national policy protects for food security.
7. Environmental Heritage Harm: Development would cause irreparable harm to the Bollin
Valley and Parklands LLD, Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve,
ancient woodlands, protected species corridors, and the setting of 19 Grade II listed buildings
(including Ashley Hall).
I request that Cheshire East Council formally classify this 291.03-hectare area (12 adjoining sites
totalling 291.03 hectares) as Unsuitable and Undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment

Yours sincerely
Leah Davis
Cheshire Resident

To whom it may concern

I object to the proposed mixed-use development on Land North of Station Road. While regeneration can bring benefits, this site is unsuitable due to the likely increase in traffic congestion, pressure on local infrastructure, and loss of open space.
Existing roads, schools, healthcare services and public transport are already under strain and there is insufficient evidence that the necessary improvements can be delivered in a timely
manner.
The development would also have an adverse impact on the character of the
area, reducing the separation between built-up areas and harming local amenity.
Alternative brownfield sites should be prioritised before releasing this land for
development.

I object to the proposed mixed-use development on Land North of Station Road due to its poor accessibility and unsustainable reliance on private car travel. The site is not adequately served by public transport, limiting realistic travel options for future residents, employees and visitors. Train services from the local station are limited, reducing connectivity to key employment, education and service centres. Walking and cycling links are also insufficient to support a genuinely sustainable development. As a
result, the proposal will generate significant additional car journeys, increasing
traffic congestion, carbon emissions and pressure on local roads. This conflicts with
sustainable development.


I object to the proposed development on Land North of Station Road due to the harm it would cause to the identity and character of the village. The village has a distinct rural
setting and strong sense of community that is closely linked to its scale, surrounding
countryside and separation from neighbouring settlements.
A large mixed-use development would fundamentally alter this character, making the village feel just another urban over- developed area and reduce its unique local identity.

The development risks overwhelming
existing communities, eroding the qualities that make the area attractive to residents
and visitors, and diminishing the historic and rural character that has developed over

I object to the proposed development on Land North of Station Road because of the
loss of Green Belt land and the harm it would cause to the openness, landscape
character and biodiversity of the area. The site provides an important undeveloped
green space that contributes to the rural setting and visual amenity of the locality.
Development would urbanise open countryside, reducing the sense of openness and damaging important views. It would also disrupt habitats used by local wildlife, potentially affecting birds, mammals, insects and other species that depend on these
green spaces.


The proposal therefore risks causing significant and irreversible
environmental harm.