Full text:
Formal objection to the proposed development of land around Ashley
I wish to formally object to the inclusion and potential development of approximately 291 hectares of land across 12 adjoining sites around Ashley, with the potential to accommodate many thousands of new homes.
I recognise the need for new housing, but development on this scale would be completely disproportionate to Ashley and would have a major impact not only on Ashley itself but also on neighbouring communities, including Hale, Hale Barns and Altrincham.
1. The scale is completely inappropriate
The cumulative effect of the 12 sites must be considered together. This is not simply a proposal for modest expansion of an existing village. Development on anything approaching the suggested scale would create a substantial new settlement and permanently transform Ashley and the surrounding countryside.
The Council should assess the sites cumulatively rather than considering them as separate parcels of land. The combined effect on housing numbers, traffic, infrastructure, services, drainage, landscape and the character of nearby communities must be fully understood before any decision is made.
2. Green Belt and loss of countryside
The land forms an important part of the Green Belt and provides separation between Greater Manchester and the Cheshire countryside.
Developing such a large area would cause urban sprawl and substantially reduce the openness and rural character of the area. It would also risk eroding the distinct identities of Ashley, Hale, Hale Barns and Altrincham by allowing development to spread between existing settlements.
Once this countryside is built upon, it cannot be recovered. The Council should therefore apply particular caution before releasing Green Belt land and should demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives have been properly considered.
3. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposal should include a detailed assessment of the agricultural quality of the land, including whether any of it is classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, generally Grades 1, 2 or 3a.
The loss of BMV farming land would be a significant and potentially irreversible impact. Such land is a finite national resource and supports food production, local farming businesses, biodiversity and the rural character of the area. It should not be treated simply as undeveloped land available for construction.
The Council should require a comprehensive, independently verified agricultural land classification survey for all 12 sites, together with an assessment of the cumulative loss of productive farmland. If BMV land is present, the exceptional circumstances required to justify its loss should be clearly demonstrated, including evidence that there are no suitable alternatives on lower-quality agricultural land or previously developed land.
The assessment should also consider the effect on existing farms, field patterns, drainage, access, hedgerows, soil quality and the viability of remaining agricultural holdings. Fragmenting farmland or surrounding working farms with new development could make agricultural operations less viable even where land is not directly built upon.
4. Roads and traffic
The existing road network around Ashley is not capable of accommodating thousands of additional households without substantial and potentially unacceptable impacts.
The narrow rural roads and restricted bridges already present significant constraints. Additional traffic would inevitably affect Ashley, Hale, Hale Barns, Altrincham and surrounding roads. It could increase congestion, delays, rat-running, noise, air pollution and risks to pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and other vulnerable road users.
The Council should require a genuinely independent assessment of the cumulative traffic impact of the entire 291-hectare area, rather than relying on individual developers to assess each site in isolation. This assessment should include construction traffic, peak-time congestion, school and commuter journeys, emergency access, public transport capacity and the effects on surrounding communities.
5. Pressure on local infrastructure and services
The scale of development would place substantial additional pressure on local schools, GP and dental services, hospitals, public transport, drainage, utilities, waste services and emergency services.
Existing services in Hale, Hale Barns, Altrincham and surrounding areas already face capacity pressures. Any proposal should identify precisely how the necessary infrastructure would be funded and delivered, and when it would be available. Vague promises of future improvements would not be sufficient to address the likely impacts.
6. Drainage, flooding and environmental impacts
The Council should require a comprehensive assessment of surface-water drainage, groundwater, flood risk and the capacity of existing water and sewerage infrastructure.
Large-scale development would increase impermeable surfaces and could worsen flooding or drainage problems in Ashley and neighbouring communities. The assessment should consider cumulative impacts across all 12 sites, rather than treating each development as a separate project.
The proposal should also address the loss of hedgerows, trees, wildlife habitats, agricultural soils and landscape character. These impacts would be particularly serious where development would remove established field boundaries or disrupt ecological corridors.
7. Impact on the character of neighbouring communities
The proposed development would not affect Ashley alone. Its scale and location would have a direct impact on the setting, identity and character of Hale, Hale Barns and Altrincham.
The countryside between these communities provides important visual and physical separation. Developing it would risk creating a continuous or more urbanised area, reducing the distinctiveness of each settlement and changing views, approaches and local landscapes permanently.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the proposed development be rejected. At a minimum, the Council should not proceed without a full cumulative assessment of all 12 sites, including the loss of any Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, the effects on farming, traffic, infrastructure, drainage, biodiversity, the Green Belt and neighbouring communities
[REDACTED]
