Full text:
I’m, as many others are, deeply concerned that the scale of development being considered is completely out of proportion with the existing infrastructure available to support it. Adlington is not simply a collection of undeveloped sites waiting to be built on. Its surrounding countryside, farmland, wildlife habitats and Green Belt are key to the character and identity of the area and should not be sacrificed to accommodate development without compelling evidence that it is genuinely necessary and sustainable.
Infrastructure must come before development. The Council must demonstrate, with clear and independently supported evidence, that roads, junctions, public transport, rail capacity, schools, GP and healthcare services, drainage, sewage, water supply and emergency services can cope with the additional population. It is not sufficient to assess individual developments in isolation. The current conditions of the roads is shocking, and the fact the number of road users will drastically increase is discouraging. For example, the bridge on the A523 was ‘too weak’ for the amount of traffic, resulting in temporary traffic lights for a number of months, creating long queues on a key road.
In particular, the proximity of a railway station should not be used as justification for further development without considering the actual capacity of the railway network. A station being nearby does not mean that there is sufficient rail capacity for hundreds of additional residents. Increased services, longer trains, platform requirements and existing network constraints must all be properly assessed. Adlington train station has an incredibly small carpark, and because it is on a main road, it is both dangerous and inconvenient for locals to walk to the station. Prestbury station also does not have capacity to facilitate increased numbers.
I am also strongly opposed to the unnecessary loss of Green Belt, productive farmland and countryside. Farmland is not "empty land". It provides food production, supports local businesses and rural livelihoods, contributes to the landscape and provides important habitats for wildlife. Once productive agricultural land is built upon, it is permanently lost.
Before any Green Belt or countryside is released, the Council should be required to demonstrate that all suitable brownfield, previously developed and existing underused sites have been fully and genuinely assessed first. Empty buildings and brownfield land should be prioritised rather than simply choosing the easiest greenfield sites to develop. For example, there are different abandoned buildings already in Bollington, which provide a more suitable area to build new houses.
The environmental consequences also cannot be considered site-by-site. The Council must assess the cumulative effect on wildlife, mature trees, hedgerows, ponds, streams, farmland habitats and ecological corridors. Fragmenting these habitats through multiple developments could cause lasting damage to local biodiversity.
I am particularly concerned about flood risk and drainage capacity. Additional hard surfaces and development can increase surface-water runoff and place further pressure on existing drainage and sewerage infrastructure. The Council must demonstrate that development will not increase flood risk for existing residents or place unacceptable pressure on local water and sewage systems.
There is also a serious question about whether this level of growth is actually sustainable for Adlington. Sustainable development is not simply a matter of finding enough physical space to build houses. New residents need access to schools, healthcare, shops, employment, public transport and safe walking and cycling routes. If those services and facilities cannot accommodate additional demand, the result will be increased car dependency, congestion and pressure on already stretched local services.
I therefore ask the Council to:
• Reject proposals that would result in inappropriate or disproportionate development around Adlington.
• Fully assess the cumulative impact of all proposed development rather than considering sites individually.
• Demonstrate that existing roads, junctions, public transport and rail infrastructure have sufficient capacity.
• Provide robust evidence that schools, healthcare, water, sewage, drainage and emergency services can cope with additional demand.
• Adopt a genuinely brownfield-first approach before considering the release of Green Belt or productive farmland.
• Protect farmland, hedgerows, mature trees, wildlife habitats and ecological corridors.
• Undertake a thorough assessment of flood risk and drainage capacity.
• Ensure that any proposed growth is proportionate to Adlington's existing character, infrastructure and ability to absorb further development.
• Provide residents with clear evidence explaining why each proposed site is required and what alternatives have been properly considered.
• Ensure residents, the Parish Council and local community groups are meaningfully involved throughout the planning process.
Adlington should not be treated as an easy solution to wider housing targets. Housing numbers cannot come at the expense of infrastructure, environmental protection and the quality of life of the existing community.
I strongly urge Cheshire East Council to reconsider the scale and location of the proposed development and to protect Adlington's Green Belt, countryside, farmland, wildlife and village character unless — and until — there is clear, credible evidence that any development is genuinely necessary, sustainable and properly supported by infrastructure.
Please record this email as a formal objection and confirm that these concerns will be taken into account as part of the consultation and planning process.
