Full text:
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 (SHEL\A) and the wider Local Plan review.
The submission comprises 12 interconnected and contiguous parcels extending to a total Of
291.03 hectares. The scale and location of this proposed development are fundamentally
inappropriate. In my view, the evidence demonstrates that rhe land is unsuitable, unavailable
and undeliverable for strategic development and should not be identified for future Local
Plan
The principal reasons are set out below.
l. Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale development
Ashley is a small rural settlement within Cheshire Eases Other Settlements and Rural
Areas tier and is identified as an infill village. It is not a Principal Town, Key Service Centre or
established strategic growth location.
The Cheshire East spatial stratew recognises that the scale of development should be
proportionate to the function and character of individual settlements and that the majority of
growth should be directed towards locations with established infrastructure, employment,
services and sustainable transport.
A development extending across 291.03 hectares and 12 contiguous parcels would be entirely
disproportionate to Ashley's existing scale and function. It would not constitute limited infill or
modest village growth; it would represent a fundamental transformation of a small rural
community into a major development location.
Ashley does not possess the schools, healthcare provision, employment opportunities,
commercial services or high-frequency public transport required to support a strategic
population increase of this scale.
Directing maior growth to such a location would therefore conflict with the principles of
sustainable development contained within CELPS Policies PG 2, SD 1 and SD 2, as well as the
wider spatial strateg of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
2. Fundamental conflict with Green Belt purposes
The proposed land lies within the Green Belt and forms part of an important area of open
countryside separating the Greater Manchester conurbation from the Cheshire settlements to the
south.
The NPPF identifies the purposes of Green Belt land 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 performs particularly important functions in relation to urban sprawl,
settlement separation and the protection of open countryside.
Development around Ashley would extend built development southwards from the Greater
Manchester conurbation and substantially reduce the remalmng open gap between settlements
including Hale and Altrincham to the north and Mobberley and Knutsford to the south.
•Ihis is not an isolated or contained development opportunity. The cumulative effect would be to
weaken the physical separation between distinct communities and create a significant risk of
progressive urbanisation and settlement coalescence.
The scale Of the proposed allocation is therefore fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose Of
maintaining the openness and permanence of the Green Belt.
3. The land does not present the characteristics of an appropriate Grey Belt site
The current national planning framework does allow for the identification of certain Green Belt
land as "Grey Belt". However, this does not create a general presumption in favour of
"Ille current framework requires assessment of whether land strongly contributes to the relevant
Green Belt purposes and whether orher protected interests provide strong reasons for restricting
development. Any development must also be in a sustainable location and must not
fundamentally undermine the purposes Of the remaining Green Belt.
•Ihis land is open, productive agricultural land, rather than previously developed land. It
performs important Green Belt functions, particularly in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining
the separation between settlements and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
•Ihose characteristics are reinforced by the site's landscape, ecological, heritage, agricultural,
flood-risk, transport and aviation constraints.
The site should therefore not be treated as a low-performing or logical Grey Belt release
opportunity.
4. Severe transport and highway constraints
The transport infrastructure surrounding Ashley is fundamentally unsuitable for strategic-scale
residential development.
Ashley railway station provides only a limited service and has very restricted parking provision. It
cannot provide the high-frequency, high-capacity public transport necessary to support a major
new population.
Of particular significance, the March 2026 Parliamentary debate concerning the proposed
Cheadle railway station recorded Transport for Greater Manchester modelling which
contemplated reducing services at Ashley, Plumley and Mobberley from hourly to every two
h0ufs in order to accommodate Cheadle services. •lhe debate described the consequence as
effectively undermining rail travel to those communities.
This is directly relevant to the question of whether Ashley can reasonably be regarded as a
sustainable location for major housing growth.
Highway network
The surrounding highway network consists predominantly Of narrow rural roads, with significant
pinch points and constrained crossings.
In particular, the network contains narrow bridge crossings over the railway, the River Bollin and
Birkin Brook. These physical constraints cannot readily accommodate the substantial increase in
vehicle movements that would result from development on this scale.
cumulative effect would be increased congestion, pressure on already constrained routes and
heightened highway safety risks, particularly towards the A538, M56 and surrounding
settl ts.
This conflicts with CELPS Policies CO I and CO 4 and the NPPFs requirement that
development should provide safe and suitable access for all users.
5. Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise constraints
The land is located beneath operational flight paths associated With Manchester Airport and is
affected by aviation-related constraints, including aircraft noise and bird-strike considerations.
Introducing a substantial new residential population into an area subject to these constraints
raises significant issues of residential amenity, public safety and aerodrome safeguarding.
The relationship with Manchester Airport therefore represents a further material constraint on
the suitability of the site for high-density residential development and requires careful
consideration under CELPS Policy SE 12 and the relevant aviation safeguarding requirements.
6. Significant ecological and biodiversity impacts
Ihe proposed allocation would result in the urbanisation of a large, contiguous area of currently
open agricultural land.
This would fragment existing habitats, interrupt ecological connectivity and place pressure on
surrounding habitats and protected sites.
Of particular importance is the relationship with Cotterill Clough Nature Reserve and SSSI,
which forms part Of the Wider ecological network in thc area. Development on this scale risks
severing or degrading habitat corridors and increasing disturbance, traffic and other pressures on
sensitive ecological receptors.
The land also provides habitat for UK Red-Listed bird species including grey partridge, tree
sparrow and greenfinch.
•Ihese impacts are directly relevant to CELPS Policy SE 3 (Biodiversity and
Geodiversity) and the biodiversity provisions of the NPPF.
7. Serious landscape and heritage impacts
The scale of the proposed development would permanently transform the character of the
Ashley countryside.
The land forms part of an important open landscape associated with the Bollin Valley and
Parklands Local Landscape Designation and the Rostherne/Tatton park Local
Landscape Designation.
Large-scale housing development would introduce extensive built form, roads, lighting,
infrastructure and associated urban activity into a predominantly rural landscape, fundamentally
altering its openness and visual character.
There are also significant heritage considerations.
Thc open agricultural setting contributes to the significance and setting of 19 Grade 11 listed
buildings, including Ashley Hall. Ellie introduction of development Into this
setting would risk causing substantial harm to the historic character and rural context of these
designated heritage assets.
These matters engage CELPS Policies SE 4 and SE 7 and the relevant national heritage
policies, which require considerable weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage
assets and their settings.
8. Loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
The proposed allocation would result in the permanent loss Of a Very substantial area Of
productive agricultural land.
Available land-quality evidence, including survey information associated With the HS2 Phase 2b
work, indicates that much of the area comprises Grade 2 and Subgrade 3a Best and Most
Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
This is not a matter of losing a small, isolated agricultural parcel. The submission comprises a
large and substantially contiguous area of productlve farmland.
The pennanent conversion of such land to housing should therefore be considered against
national policy requirements to recognise the benefits of BMV agricultural land and, where
significant development of agricultural land is necessary, to prefer poorer-quality land.
The availability of brownfield and other previously developed opportunities elsewhere should be
properly considered before sacrificing a strategically important area of high-quality agricultural
This represents a further material conflict with CELPS Policy SE 2 and the relevant provisions
of the NPPF concermng agricultural land and the effective use of land.
9. Flood risk, drainage and water-management constraints
parts Of the area, particularly towards the M56, are already susceptible to flooding and surface-
wa ter problems.
The development of the areas submitted would inevitably introduce extensive areas of
impermeable surface, including buildings, roads, driveways and other hardstanding.
Without exceptionally robust drainage and attenuation infrastructure, this would increase
surface-water runoff into the River Bollin catchment and could exacerbate flood risk both Within
and downstream of the site.
scale of the proposed development therefore raises serious concerns under CELPS Policy
SE 13 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and the NPPFs flood-risk and
management policies.
The existence of these constraints should be treated as a fundamental consideration when
assessing the site's deliverability.
IO. Major infrastructure and utility deficiencies
There is also a fundamental question as to whether the infrastructure necessary to support
development Of this scale exists or could realistically be p'0Vided.
The area does not currently possess the level Of utility, sewerage, electricity-grid and drainage
infrastructure that would be required to support a strategic development Of this magnitude.
Any proposal would therefore require substantial infrastructure investment and potentially
significant off-site works.
Under CELPS Policy IN I, infrastructure requirements and their deliverability are fundamental
considerations tn determining whether a site is genuinely deliverable.
The fact that infrastructure might theoretically be capable of being provided in the future should
not be confused with evidence that a site is presently deliverable or represents a sustainable
location for strategic growth.
11. The cumulative impact is decisive
Importantly, these constraints should not be considered in isolation.
The site is not affected by one individual planning constraint that could simply be mitigated
through a conventional development proposal. Instead, the 291.03-hectare submission is affected
by a combination of mutually reinforcing constraints, including:
Green Belt purposes and settlement separation;
an inappropriate rural settlement hierarchy;
inadequate public transport;
severe highway and bridge constraints;
Manchester Airport safeguarding and aircraft noise;
ecological and biodiversity sensitivity;
landscape designations;
heritage assets and their settings;
Best and Most Versatile agricultural land;
existing flood-risk and drainage concerns; and
• significant infrastructure and utility requirements.
cumulative effect is critical.
A development Of this scale would require the surrounding infrastructure, landscape and
environment to accommodate a wholly new urban area rather than a proportionate extension to
an existing sustainable settlement.
The question is therefore not simply whether individual constraints could theoretically be
mitigated. The fundamental question is whether Ashley is an appropriate and sustainable
location for strategic development of this magnitude in the first place.
The evidence strongly indicates that it is not.
Requested Action
For all of the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Cheshire East Council:
1. Record all 12 contiguous parcels, totalling 291.03 hectares, as Unsuitable,
Unavailable and Undeliverable within the SHELAA assessment;
2. Do not identify the land as a preferred or potential strategic housing allocation
within the Local Plan review;
3. Do not treat the land as an appropriate Grey Belt release opportunity; and
4. Exclude the 12 parcels from future Local Plan allocations on the basis of their
combined spatial, environmental, transport, infrastructure, agricultural, heritage
and flood-risk constraints.
The proposed development would represent an unprecedented transformation Of Ashley's rural
character and would conflict with the established spatial strategy Of Cheshire East as well as
important national planning Objectives.
The combination of Green Belt function, unsustainable settlement location, inadequate transport
and infrastructure, high-quality agricultural land, environmental and heritage sensitivities, aviation
constraints and Hood-risk considerations makes this land fundamentally inappropriate for
strategic development.
I therefore respectfully request that the Council concludes that the 291.03-hectare submission
is unsuitable, unavailable and undeliverable for strategic development and that all 12
parcels are excluded from future Local Plan allocations.
