Local plan scoping consultation

I am writing to formally submit my objection regarding the inclusion and assessment of the
291.03-hectare land submission around Ashley within the Cheshire East Strategic Housing and
Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) and the ongoing Local Plan review
(comprising 12 contiguous sites totalling 291.03 hectares).

This land allocation is fundamentally inappropriate for strategic scale development. The detailed
planning policy justifications outlined below demonstrate how this submission directly conflicts
with established national and local planning frameworks.

1. Conflict with Spatial Strategy & Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy

      •     Lowest Settlement Ranking: Under Policy PG 2 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the
            Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (CELPS), Ashley is categorized at the lowest tier. The
            village lacks essential local infrastructure, including primary school capacity, healthcare
            facilities, and local employment opportunities required to sustain housing growth.

      •     Failure of Sustainable Location Principles: Promoting major growth in a rural
            location that lacks high-frequency public transport directly violates CELPS Policy SD 1
            (Sustainable Development in Cheshire East), CELPS Policy SD 2, and Chapter 2 of the
            National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which explicitly dictate that growth must
            be focused toward Tier 1 Principal Towns and Tier 2 Key Service Centres.

2. Incompatibility with Green Belt Policy & Failure to Meet "Grey Belt” Exceptions

      •      "Wash-Over" Green Belt Status: The entire parish of Ashley carries a "wash-over"
            Green Belt designation under CELPS Policy PG 3 (Green Belt). This classification
            provides strict protection aimed at safeguarding the open and rural character of
            settlements enveloped by countryside.

      •      Essential Strategic Buffer: Ashley operates as the narrowest remaining countryside
            buffer separating Greater Manchester (Trafford/Hale/Altrincham) from Cheshire East
            settlements (Mobberley/Knutsford). Developing this site would directly breach core
            Green Belt functions set out in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF—specifically Purpose (a) to
            check unrestricted urban sprawl, Purpose (b) to prevent neighbouring towns from
            merging, and Purpose (c) to safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

      •     Ineligibility for "Grey Belt" Reclassification: Under national guidance, Green Belt
            land can only be released if it qualifies as "Grey Belt" (previously developed land or land
            making a negligible contribution to Green Belt purposes). The productive, open
            farmland across Ashley strongly fulfils Green Belt functions and is further disqualified
            under NPPF Footnote 7 due to statutory environmental, heritage, and agricultural
            constraints.

3. Transport Infrastructure Deficits, Highway Safety & Aviation Safeguarding

      • Inadequate Rail Connections: Ashley train station cannot be considered a well[1]connected transit hub. It currently operates at a low frequency of just one train per hour
      in each direction at maximum. Furthermore, with the proposed new station at Cheadle
      now likely to proceed, service models indicate that Ashley’s service frequency could be
      reduced further to just one train every two hours, rendering it wholly incapable of
      supporting sustainable commuter demand.

      • Physical Network Constraints & Bridge Bottlenecks: The local highway network
      surrounding Ashley consists of narrow rural lanes and significant structural pinch points.
      Severe physical limitations are created by narrow bridges across the area—not only over
      the railway line, but also crossing the River Bollin and smaller watercourses such as
      Birkin Brook. The substantial traffic volumes generated by a housing development would
      cause severe cumulative network congestion and acute road safety risks, in direct conflict
      with CELPS Policy CO 1 (Sustainable Travel and Transport), Policy CO 4, and NPPF
      Paragraph 115.

      • Statutory Airport Safeguarding Constraints: The site lies directly beneath operational
      noise contours and bird-strike hazard zones for Manchester Airport. Placing high-density
      residential development in this location breaches statutory aerodrome safeguarding
      protocols and CELPS Policy SE 12 (Pollution and Land Instability) regarding public
      safety and noise exposure.

4. Severe Loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) Agricultural Land

      • Soil Quality & Food Production: Agricultural land classifications (including dataset
      findings from HS2 Phase 2b) confirm that the submission consists of Grade 2 and
      Subgrade 3a Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. Rather than fragmented
      pockets, the site forms an unbroken, contiguous area of high-grade farmland vital for
      regional food security.

      • Direct Policy Violation: Both national policy (NPPF Paragraph 180) and local policy
      (CELPS Policy SE 2: Efficient Use of Land) strictly mandate the preservation of high[1]grade agricultural land for food production, requiring development to be directed to
      brownfield or lower-quality land first.

5. Unacceptable Environmental, Landscape & Heritage Impacts

      • Landscape Degradation: Allocating this site would destroy the landscape setting of the
      Bollin Valley and Parklands Local Landscape Designation (LLD) as well as the
      Rostherne/Tatton Park LLD, violating CELPS Policy SE 4 (The Landscape).

      • Ecological Harm: Development would sever connected wildlife corridors and
      jeopardize sensitive natural habitats, including the Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve /
      SSSI, conflicting with CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and NPPF
      Paragraphs 180–185.

      • Impact on Heritage Assets: The area contains the settings of 19 Grade II listed
      structures (including Ashley Hall). CELPS Policy SE 7 (The Historic Environment) and
      Chapter 16 of the NPPF (Paragraphs 200–208) require that great weight be placed on
      preserving designated heritage assets and their landscape settings.

6. Hydrological, Drainage & Utility Constraints

      • Surface Water & Flood Risks: The area lacks deep foul sewerage infrastructure, main
      electrical grid capacity, and adequate surface water drainage. Large-scale development
      would significantly increase surface water flood risks within the River Bollin catchment,
      breaching CELPS Policy SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and NPPF Chapter
      14 (Paragraphs 165–175).

      • Utility Infrastructure Deficits: Contrary to CELPS Policy IN 1 (Infrastructure),
      candidate sites must prove that deliverable utility infrastructure can be supplied without
      causing off-site environmental degradation.

 Conclusion & Formal Request

This 291.03-hectare proposal (spanning 12 adjoining sites) fails to comply with virtually every
major planning constraint metric. It contradicts the local spatial strategy, fails national Green Belt
tests, relies on inadequate transport and utility infrastructure, destroys high-grade agricultural
land, and causes severe harm to protected historic and natural landscapes.
I formally request that Cheshire East Council classify all 12 submissions within this 291.03-
hectare site as Unsuitable, Unavailable, and Undeliverable in the SHELAA assessment and
exclude them from future Local Plan allocations