Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to register an explicit formal objection to allocating or considering the 291.03-hectare tract of land surrounding Ashley across all 12 interconnected parcels within the SHELAA and broader Local Plan review. Promoting strategic development on this scale in an unsustainable rural location is entirely unfeasible and violates statutory planning frameworks.

1. Invalidation under Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy
• Lowest Settlement Tier: Under CELPS Policy PG 2, Ashley occupies the lowest tier of the local settlement structure, completely lacking the primary education, healthcare services, and employment opportunities required to support population growth.

• Violation of Sustainable Location Frameworks: Directing massive housing to an isolated rural settlement conflicts directly with CELPS Policy SD 1, Policy SD 2, and national plan-making guidelines requiring strategic development to be focused within Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2 Key Service Centres.

2. Transport Infrastructure Deficits, Highway Hazards, and Aviation Restrictions
• Inadequate Rail Connectivity: Ashley station operates at a low frequency of just 1 train per hour in each direction and has no commuter parking. Service frequency will worsen following the opening of the funded station at Cheadle. In March 2026, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport Keir Mather MP confirmed that reducing Ashley and Plumley service calls to one train every two hours is required by the Rail North Partnership Board to enable Cheadle's hourly stops. This reduction renders public transit unviable for prospective residents and fails national "well-connected station" criteria for higher-density rural growth.

• Network Pinch Points and Narrow Bridges: Local narrow lanes cannot absorb major vehicular volumes. Critical bottlenecks created by single-lane bridges over the railway line, River Bollin, and Birkin Brook would trigger severe cumulative congestion and road safety hazards, breaching CELPS Policy CO 1, Policy CO 4, and national transport policies.

• Aerodrome Safeguarding Hazards: Positioned directly beneath Manchester Airport operational flight paths, the land falls within noise restriction and bird-strike management zones, violating CELPS Policy SE 12 and mandatory aerodrome safety rules.

3. Severe Impacts on Landscape, Biodiversity, and Heritage Assets
• Landscape Degradation: Allocating these sites would irreparably harm the settings of both the Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation (LLD) and the Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, breaching CELPS Policy SE 4.

• Ecological Severance: Paving over this open expanse would fragment established habitat corridors and imperil protected ecological sites, including the adjacent Cotterill Clough SSSI / Nature Reserve, violating CELPS Policy SE 3 and national nature recovery policies.

• Heritage Assets Compromised: The open fields frame the settings of 19 Grade II listed buildings, including Ashley Hall. Development breaches CELPS Policy SE 7 and national heritage protections requiring great weight to be given to preserving designated historic assets and their rural settings.

4. Non-Compliance with Green Belt Protections and "Grey Belt" Criteria
• Wash-Over Green Belt Status: The entire parish of Ashley carries "wash-over" Green Belt protection under CELPS Policy PG 3 to preserve its sensitive rural character.

• Encroachment & Settlement Coalescence: Ashley represents the narrowest remaining countryside gap separating Greater Manchester (Trafford, Hale, Altrincham) from Cheshire East (Knutsford, Mobberley). Developing the site drives urban sprawl and causes settlement merging, violating core national Green Belt objectives.

• Disqualification from "Grey Belt": Under Policy GB7 of the current NPPF framework, "Grey Belt" exceptions require land to make a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes. This active farmland performs essential Green Belt functions, while its acute heritage, ecological, and flood constraints present severe barriers under national policy.

5. Destruction of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Farmland
• High-Grade Soil Quality: Land assessments (including HS2 Phase 2b survey data) confirm that the 291.03-hectare site consists predominantly of Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a BMV soil.

• Undermining Food Security: Converting this contiguous, highly productive agricultural area to housing threatens regional food production, violating CELPS Policy SE 2 and national mandates to safeguard top-tier agricultural land and prioritize lower-grade or brownfield options.

6. Drainage, Hydrological Risks, and Utility Infrastructure Inadequacies
• Surface Water & Flood Risks: Converting open farmland into hardstanding would dramatically increase runoff into the River Bollin catchment, compounding downstream flood risks in violation of CELPS Policy SE 13 and national flood resilience policies.

• Infrastructure Constraints: The site lacks the sewer network, power grid capacity, and utility infrastructure necessary for bulk residential development, failing the deliverability criteria of CELPS Policy IN 1.

Conclusion and Action Requested The submission across all 12 contiguous parcels (totalling 291.03 hectares) fails every applicable local and national planning policy. I formally request that Cheshire East Council record all 12 site parcels as Unsuitable, Unavailable, and Undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment and omit them completely from future Local Plan allocations.

To: Spatial Planning Team, Cheshire East Council

I am writing to register a firm formal objection to the inclusion and consideration of the 291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the wider Cheshire East Local Plan review.

The submission comprises 12 adjoining and contiguous parcels extending to approximately 291.03 hectares. Taken together, these parcels represent a development opportunity of a scale wholly disproportionate to the existing settlement of Ashley and one which would fundamentally alter the relationship between the village, the surrounding Cheshire countryside and the Greater Manchester urban area.

The evidence indicates that this land is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development. In particular, it is important that the land is assessed correctly under the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and is not treated as Grey Belt simply because it is Green Belt land that could potentially contribute towards meeting housing need.

The principal reasons are set out below.

1. Ashley performs an important strategic Green Belt function
The starting point should be that the Ashley land is Green Belt for a clear spatial reason.
The parish of Ashley is designated as washed-over Green Belt under Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Policy PG 3. The designation reflects the particular sensitivity of this rural settlement and the importance of maintaining the openness and rural character of the surrounding countryside.
The current 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 makes a particularly strong contribution to the first three of these purposes.It is not simply countryside surrounding a small settlement. Its location gives it a strategic spatial function, helping to maintain the remaining open separation between the Greater Manchester urban area, including Trafford, Hale and Altrincham, and the settlements and open countryside of Cheshire East, including Mobberley and Knutsford.Development across 291.03 hectares would therefore not merely enlarge Ashley. It would substantially extend built development southwards and materially weaken the strategic countryside gap between Greater Manchester and Cheshire.This is precisely the type of strategic function for which Green Belt protection exists.
2. The land should not be treated as Grey Belt simply because it is Green Belt. The current NPPF does provide for certain Green Belt land to be identified as Grey Belt. However, this does not create a general presumption that Green Belt land should be released wherever there is a housing requirement. The assessment must be site-specific.
[Redacted]