Local plan scoping consultation

I strongly object to the proposed development of Ashley’s Green Belt. This is not unused or previously developed land; it is open, productive countryside forming a vital and increasingly narrow Green Belt buffer between Hale/Trafford and Knutsford/Mobberley. It performs exactly the anti-sprawl function that the Green Belt is intended to protect.

The land is working farmland and does not reasonably appear to meet the Grey Belt test of land making only a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes. Much of this countryside is good-quality, productive agricultural land. Best and Most Versatile farmland is a finite resource and should not be permanently lost to large-scale development when more sustainable locations exist.

There would also be a significant impact on wildlife and the wider environment. These fields, mature hedgerows and woodland form established habitats and wildlife corridors, with Cotterill Clough SSSI/nature reserve, ancient woodland, protected trees and other sensitive habitats nearby. Large-scale development would permanently fragment this rural landscape and put further pressure on wildlife.

Ashley also simply does not have the infrastructure for development on this scale. Public transport is extremely limited and Ashley station does not provide the level of service necessary to make a major new development genuinely sustainable. Residents would inevitably be heavily dependent on cars.

Our rural roads, narrow railway bridges and surrounding routes are already under pressure, with congestion on the A538 and towards the M56. The condition of the local roads is already unacceptable, with persistent potholes that the council has repeatedly failed to adequately address. Adding substantial additional traffic to an already inadequate and poorly maintained rural road network without first resolving these existing problems would be irresponsible and raises serious road-safety concerns.

There are further constraints including surface-water and River Bollin flood risks, Manchester Airport noise and aviation safeguarding considerations, as well as potential harm to the historic landscape, Ashley Hall, listed-building settings and historic hedgerows and fields.

I am particularly concerned that land has been put forward as part of these proposals despite Tatton Estates not owning it and the actual landowners not having consented to their land being included. This should be clearly recorded and given serious consideration. There must be complete transparency about land ownership, landowner consent and the realistic deliverability of any site being promoted for development. Land belonging to people who have not consented to its inclusion should not simply be presented as though it is available for development.

Ashley is a small rural parish. Its Green Belt is productive farmland, an important wildlife habitat and a vital buffer against urban sprawl. Large-scale, car-dependent development here would cause permanent harm while placing even greater pressure on infrastructure that is already inadequate. I strongly urge the council to reject the inclusion of this land and protect Ashley’s Green Belt.

I strongly object to the proposed development of Ashley’s Green Belt. This is not unused or previously developed land; it is open, productive countryside forming a vital and increasingly narrow Green Belt buffer between Hale/Trafford and Knutsford/Mobberley. It performs exactly the anti-sprawl function that the Green Belt is intended to protect.

The land is working farmland and does not reasonably appear to meet the Grey Belt test of land making only a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes. Much of this countryside is good-quality, productive agricultural land. Best and Most Versatile farmland is a finite resource and should not be permanently lost to large-scale development when more sustainable locations exist.

There would also be a significant impact on wildlife and the wider environment. These fields, mature hedgerows and woodland form established habitats and wildlife corridors, with Cotterill Clough SSSI/nature reserve, ancient woodland, protected trees and other sensitive habitats nearby. Large-scale development would permanently fragment this rural landscape and put further pressure on wildlife.

Ashley also simply does not have the infrastructure for development on this scale. Public transport is extremely limited and Ashley station does not provide the level of service necessary to make a major new development genuinely sustainable. Residents would inevitably be heavily dependent on cars.

Our rural roads, narrow railway bridges and surrounding routes are already under pressure, with congestion on the A538 and towards the M56. The condition of the local roads is already unacceptable, with persistent potholes that the council has repeatedly failed to adequately address. Adding substantial additional traffic to an already inadequate and poorly maintained rural road network without first resolving these existing problems would be irresponsible and raises serious road-safety concerns.

There are further constraints including surface-water and River Bollin flood risks, Manchester Airport noise and aviation safeguarding considerations, as well as potential harm to the historic landscape, Ashley Hall, listed-building settings and historic hedgerows and fields.

I am particularly concerned that land has been put forward as part of these proposals despite Tatton Estates not owning it and the actual landowners not having consented to their land being included. This should be clearly recorded and given serious consideration. There must be complete transparency about land ownership, landowner consent and the realistic deliverability of any site being promoted for development. Land belonging to people who have not consented to its inclusion should not simply be presented as though it is available for development.

Ashley is a small rural parish. Its Green Belt is productive farmland, an important wildlife habitat and a vital buffer against urban sprawl. Large-scale, car-dependent development here would cause permanent harm while placing even greater pressure on infrastructure that is already inadequate. I strongly urge the council to reject the inclusion of this land and protect Ashley’s Green Belt.