CPRE Cheshire response to New Towns Draft Programme consultation

We have drafted a response to the government’s New Town Programme consultation explaining the evidence as to why Adlington should not be considered for major development.

This draft response will feed into the national CPRE response to the consultation. We will submit our final response shortly before the consultation closes on May 19th 2026, to allow for any changes that may be needed if new information arises in the meantime. We are however publishing this draft text here now to help others make their own responses to the consultation (which can be found at New Towns Programme consultation).

Note – the earlier questions are purely about us as the responding organisation.

Section 3.1 – assessment of locations

Q.7

Thinking about the 13 locations listed, which locations do you believe have positive features that could help achieve the objectives if the New Towns programme?

What do you believe are the positive features of the location(s) you have selected?

A.7  CPRE has given its cautious support to those locations which are almost entirely brownfield and/or which are regeneration-led – albeit with qualifications in some instances.  It has made known its tentative endorsement for the following:

• Manchester Victoria North
• Leeds South Bank
• Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc
• Milton Keynes
• Tempsford

Q.8

Do you think any of the 13 locations listed face barriers which could hold back delivery of the New Towns Programme objectives? (Yes/ No/ Not sure)

If you have answered yes, please tell us what you believe the barriers to delivery in the location(s) you have selected are.

A.8  Yes – in respect of three of the original 12 locations recommended by the New Towns Taskforce.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England nationally and CPRE Cheshire Branch have objected most strongly to Adlington in Cheshire being used as the location for a New Town.  It would not only not deliver the objectives of the New Towns programme, it would have the maximum negative impacts on the environment.  This is also the view of Macclesfield M.P. Tim Roca.

Many of the barriers that exist in Adlington’s case are laid out in a report published by CPRE Cheshire Branch: ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’: https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/about-us/what-we-care-about/planning/opposing-adlington-new-town/.  Hard copies were sent to ministers, senior civil servants, some MPs, some Cheshire East Councillors, Town and Parish Councillors and others earlier in the year.  And Cheshire Wildlife Trust produced an assessment of the landscape, the ecology and the history: https://www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/news/cheshire-wildlife-trust-warns-adlington-new-town-must-be-opposed-sake-wildlife-and-history.

It is also important to note that the principal authority, Cheshire East Council (CEC), are equally opposed.  Their reasoning as to why Adlington is totally unsuitable for major development was expressed in a letter sent by the Council’s leader and deputy leader to Steve Reed, the Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government in December.  That letter is here:  https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/council_information/media_hub/media_releases/cheshire-east-council’s-position-on-adlington-new-town-proposals.aspx. And a letter sent by CPRE’s national CEO, Roger Mortlock, to the Secretary of State, also in December, is here:  https://www.cprecheshire.org.uk/news/cpre-chair-adlington-nt-letter/.

Additionally, CPRE has serious doubts about the suitability of two of the proposed London sites –  Crews Hill and Chase Park in Enfield and Thamesmead in Greenwich.  London CPRE Branch has many reasons for objecting to them.  See: https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/new-towns-distraction-from-tackling-london-affordable-housing-emergency/ and https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/enfieldgreenbeltthreat/ and https://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/greenwich-or-greywich/.

Q.9

Do you think the SEA report has identified the main environmental issues relevant to the 13 locations?

A.9  No.

It is important to study the actual wording of regulation 6 of Schedule 2 of the SEA Regulations  (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1633/schedule/2/made).  This lists 12 topic areas as examples of what should be covered.  (It says ‘such as’).  It asks for ‘The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long-term effects’.  The assessment scope topics listed in section 4.2 confine themselves to just those 12 issues suggested in the schedule, rather than addressing all the key issues which are relevant.  Missing from the list are:

• Transport impact assessment (this should be a separate topic, not only dealt with cursorily under air pollution and climate change)
• Noise/ loss of tranquility
• Food security
• Whole life carbon assessment (WLCA) – https://www.rics.org/profession-standards/rics-standards-and-guidance/sector-standards/construction-standards/whole-life-carbon-assessment. In view of the fact the rough number of houses is known in each case and, from that, it is possible to calculate the amount of supporting infrastructure and services needed, it should be possible to produce a rough WLCA calculation at this early stage.

Q.10

Is there any additional environmental information about these locations that the SEA should take into account?   (Yes/ No/ Not sure).

A.10 Yes.

According to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, international environmental law and international human rights law demand that strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments should include assessments of social and human rights impacts. The report ‘Environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental impact assessments and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ was issued by the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment, Astrid Puentes Riano, on July 17^th 2025 and presented to the U.N. General Assembly at its 80^th session in New York in September 2025 (https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/environmental-impact-assessments-strategic-environmental-impact-assessments).

The U.N. report calls for all environmental assessments to be “proactive, multidisciplinary and comprehensive preliminary analyses”, for them to be carried out before harm occurs and, where appropriate, to offer adequate remediation measures (para. 2, Executive Summary: Framework for Environmental, Social and Human Right Impact Assessments).  According to the report, the most common violation of human rights recorded to date is the failure to properly assess climate change impacts. This consultation response will therefore return to this matter under that heading – and also under the heading of health and wellbeing.

It is all too apparent that the SEA exercises conducted on the New Towns sites that were proposed were all very high level, desktop ones. As a result, they have added little extra value to the report issued by the New Towns Taskforce – which itself did not have the benefit of bespoke new evidence. In many instances the SEA simply repeats statements in the taskforce report.

It is apparent that no bespoke research was commissioned for the SEA, there is no background evidence document and it is questionable as to what level of facts-checking took place because there are a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

In many instances, the admission is made that impacts are “not known at this stage” due to lack of information and yet this dearth of evidence does not prevent the consultants, WSP, coming to conclusions which, with remarkable consistency, are mostly that the effects would be ‘minor’ or ‘minor positive’ in the long term.

We substantiate the remarks we have made here with more detailed analysis of each section of the report on Adlington in the following pages.

Adlington

Air quality

Extremely important issues such as air quality are simply swept aside with remarks such as:  “In the medium to long term, the transport implications of delivering 14,000 – 20,000 homes, other uses and associated infrastructure (in terms of potential number of trips generated and impacts on the highway network within this broad location) are not known at this stage” (Table 1-2 Assessment of Adlington, Cheshire East broad location, page 449). Yet, despite this admission of a lack of any evidence, the conclusion is that, in the long term, there would be “a minor positive effect” (page 451). How can such a conclusion be reached without the requisite information?

There is nothing in the SEA to demonstrate what, if any, calculations were made to project forward air quality over the short, medium and long term. For Adlington, the SEA merely quotes where the nearest Air Quality Management Areas currently lie and quotes from the New Towns Taskforce report on the situation with public transport. This is wholly inadequate for an SEA which is supposed to be weighing up what the impacts of future development might be.

Taking the issues in the order in which they are addressed in the SEA:-

Rail

CPRE pointed out in their report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’ (on page 73) the deficiencies in the taskforce report in as far as its statements about rail services relating to Adlington were concerned.  The SEA simply repeats what they had to say. The SEA exercise should have moved on from the taskforce report, questioned its assertions and conducting investigations of its own before attempting to draw conclusions. It is critical that this should still happen.

The consultants, WSP, admit that substantial work at significant cost would be required in order to increase and improve the rail service to Adlington station.  Even so, they underestimate the work that would be necessary.  They refer only to the need for improvements and upgrades at Adlington and Stoke-on-Trent stations.  That requirement has been identified if longer rolling stock than the current three-car trains were introduced to deliver the stopping service between Stoke and Manchester. These would require longer platforms – but not only at Adlington – also at Prestbury and other stations as well as a longer parking bay at Stoke.

Also, if the intention was to increase the frequency of services, there would have to be a cut to the number of fast, non-stopping inter-city services on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and perhaps also on the slots available to freight trains.  Currently, both the Avanti Manchester – London trains and Cross Country trains pass through Adlington and Prestbury stations at speeds of 70 mph to 90 mph at regular intervals. There has to be ‘pathing time’ intervals between trains for safety reasons and the WCML is only two tracks between Kidsgrove and Cheadle Hulme.

The only other mitigation measure that could be considered would be the introduction of either passing loops on both sides or extra north bound and southbound tracks at one of the stations where slower trains could wait while fast trains pass by. Either of those options would be phenomenally expensive – even more so if the plan was to electrify the new tracks.  Currently diesel trains deliver the stopping service – diesel not being an environmentally sensitive fuel.

Additionally, there is the fact that the UK’s rail network, one of the oldest in the world, faces significant challenges with its signalling systems. Many of these systems, some of which date back decades, are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to maintain. Network Rail embarked on a 10-year signalling improvement plan in 2024 and its intention to move to a digital European Train Control System, but it remains to be seen if the proposed timetable for works will be met.

All rail options involve significant construction having to take place over very long periods, promoting poor air quality.  We contend, therefore, that the assessment that the rail problems constitute ‘a minor negative effect’ is an understatement.

Traffic effects on air quality

Similarly, the issue of traffic pollution is also underplayed as only certain aspects are considered and only in the most rudimentary manner. The sole issues commented upon are: the anticipated increased use of electric cars and vans, the impacts of construction traffic and the particulate matter emanating from tyres and brakes.  Road freight traffic, public transport and coaches do not feature and there are no facts and figures which take into account the extra traffic that would be generated outwith Adlington – in Cheshire East, in the Peak District National Park and in Stockport – if a new town or large scale developments were to take place in Adlington.

Also, significantly, there is no attempt to calculate how much extra highway capacity might be required and what impact such development would have on the air quality of the wider area.  As CPRE pointed out on page 76 of their report, ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’, the A555 Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road and the connecting Poynton Bypass, which were opened in 2018 and 2023 respectively, were not designed to accommodate major development in this location.

Meanwhile, pollution from buildings is not tackled at all, even though 22% of harmful emissions in 2025 were from buildings and the product use sector, as shown in the government’s statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics-2025/2025-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release).

Consequently, the consultant’s overall assessment – on page 451 – that, in the long term, there would be a minor positive effect on air quality is extremely doubtful.  Especially as it is based on the assumption that “a standalone settlement at this scale in this location will have a high degree of self containment” (page 451). This assumption is misplaced.

CPRE’s report, ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’, identified (on page 67) a number of Green Belt sites on the Stockport/Cheshire East border targeted for housing developments in the Draft Stockport Local Plan in addition to the further building out of the former airfield at Woodford. Since that report was written, another major proposal has come forward for a 500 home estate on more Green Belt on the Adlington/Poynton border and a consultation on an environmental impact appraisal has taken place. If approved, it would fill in the gap between the airfield and Adlington.

It is not possible to identify air quality mitigation measures for proposals which are not fully defined and which lack background evidence. Adlington had now been classed as a potential ‘alternative’ site that would be suitable for large development. How large? With what impacts?

The mitigation column in the SEA is made up of quotes from the National Planning Policy Frame-work and impractical suggestions such as implementing a clean air zone, something for which there is no precedent in such circumstances. There is also an oblique reference to providing more roads (separate from ‘provision of appropriate public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure’) in ‘working with adjoining authorities to deliver more transport infrastructure’ – but no explanation as to how constructing more roads would help with improved air quality.

Table 1-2 admits (under ‘Uncertainties’ on page 451) that “the implications of development at this scale in this location on the existing network and number of vehicle trips generated are unknown”, plus “the nature and scale of public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure to be provided as part of the development are unknown” and “the number of construction vehicles is not known at this stage”.  The lack of such important detail at this formative stage is not acceptable.  As the U.N. Human Rights Office is at pains to point out, it is essential that impacts on the environment, on society and on human heath are properly calculated at this stage.

Biodiversity, flora and fauna

The consultant’s long term assessment of biodiversity impacts is at best contorted and at worst contradictory. It says, on page 453:  “Overall, the Adlington Cheshire East broad location is assessed as likely to have a significant negative effect on the Biodiversity SEA objective in the short, medium and long term and a minor positive effect in the long term”.

This judgement does not align with Cheshire Wildlife Trust’s (CWT’s) very thorough appraisal of the area. According to their ‘Baseline Assessment of Ecological and Landscape Features of the Adlington Area’: “Adlington is a prime example of [an] ancient countryside”. It has 167 ha. of deciduous woodland (11.4% cover), of which 18 ha are listed as ancient and innumerable veteran trees. Its hedgerow network totals 78 km and there are 19 km of watercourses and about 120 ponds. The nine Local Landscape Designations represent the borough’s highest quality and there are seven Local Wildlife Sites. This rich environment supports many species of birds and invertebrates (https://www.cheshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/news/cheshire-wildlife-trust-warns-adlington-new-town-must-be-opposed-sake-wildlife-and-history).

CWT explained in their report that “The majority of the proposed new town location is mapped in the Cheshire Local Nature Recovery Strategy either as a Core Local Nature Site (2% of the site) or as Opportunity Area for Nature Recovery (78% of the site)” (page 12). However, it refers to the poor ecological status of the River Dean, due to pollution from Bollington upstream, and the risks of further development occurring around the river and its tributaries.

Their report concludes: “The current proposals for Adlington new town are located in one of the most ecologically valued and protected parts of the Cheshire region, as demonstrated by the density and diversity of priority habitats, threatened species and ecological corridors and networks. This would make it extremely challenging for the scheme to meet the high environmental standards expected of a new town” (page 16).

This consultation question asks for suggestions of ‘practical’ mitigation measures but it doesn’t offer any itself that could be considered ‘practical’.  It suggests a long list of management plans. How effective would they be? The list of ‘Uncertainties’ listed on page 453 is deeply concerning.

These are:

• The extent to which any existing designated or non designated habitats (including waterbodies) will be retained is not known
• The scale and nature of green infrastructure to be delivered on site is not known at this stage
• The scale and nature (on-site, off-site, credits, etc) of the biodiversity net gain to be delivered is not known at this stage”

It is almost impossible to envisage any mitigation measures that would succeed if a new town or very large housing developments were deposited onto this Green Belt land.  So much of it should be protected.  That point made, it might be possible to ‘mitigate’ by downsizing significantly and allocating just one or two appropriately designed, small, developments situated in the most sustainable locations.  But, it needs to be accepted that this area does not lend itself to large scale developments. They would be too destructive to mitigate.

Our only suggestion under this heading, therefore, is that one or two small areas with the least ecological and landscape value and which would have the smallest environmental impact be considered for allocation in the Local Plan for development. This or these should be primarily aimed at fulfilling local needs and should include affordable housing.

Climate change (adaptation and mitigation)

Based on average construction, maintenance and repair figures (per dwelling) supplied by RIBA, the SEA makes a stab at projecting the number of tonnes of carbon that would be emitted if Adlington were built out at 800 dwelling per annum. However, it does not appear to have taken into consideration the need to supply the site with massive new infrastructure in the first instance and it does not take into account upstream and downstream consequences.

Emissions from traffic are dealt with in the most cursory manner, repeating the same phrase used in the air quality section, ie. “the transport implications of delivering 14,000 – 20,000 homes are not known at this stage”, going on to rely on the phasing out of petrol diesel cars and vans.

There is no reference to the fact that transport is the principal contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2025, according to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it contributed 31% of net greenhouse gas emissions. (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/provisional-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-statistics-2025/2025-uk-greenhouse-gas-emissions-provisional-figures-statistical-release).

In addition, as stated in response to the ‘Air Quality’ section of this consultation, there is no recognition of the fact that the A555 Manchester Airport Eastern Link Road and the connecting Poynton Bypass, which were opened in 2018 and 2023 respectively, were not designed to accommodate major development in this part of Cheshire East. Where are the projections of climate change impacts from the new highway capacity that is bound to be demanded?

Here it is important to also re-iterate the findings the U.N. Human Rights Council previously alluded to. Their report ‘Environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental impact assessments and the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment’ flags up the fact that the most common violation of human rights recorded to date is the failure to properly assess climate change impacts (https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/environmental-impact-assessments-strategic-environmental-impact-assessments).

The report, presented to the U.N. general assembly last year by the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, calls for “proactive, multidisciplinary and comprehensive preliminary analyses” and for them to be carried out before harm occurs.  In its Framework for Environmental, Social and Human Rights Impact Assessments, it says: “States must assess the full impact of activities and projects that may cause harm to the climate system.  This includes evaluating direct GHG emissions from the project or activity; indirect emissions from the generation of acquired and consumed electricity and all other indirect emissions … including upstream and downstream emissions across the value chain”.

The standards sought by the U.N. are not met by this SEA which attempts to cover itself with the following statement (under ‘Uncertainties’):

“The exact scale of GHG emissions associated with the broad location is unknown and will be dependent on a number of factors including: the exact design of new development; future travel patterns and trends; individual energy consumption behaviour and the extent to which energy supply has been decarbonised” (page 456).

All the potential mitigation measures listed in the SEA are focused on later stages of the development. None of them tackle the climate change impacts of getting infrastructure for thousands of new homes to a greenfield site stretching over 1,000 hectares. None of them address the impacts of generating urban sprawl into a rural area and there is no attempt to assess the cumulative effect of known development proposals around Adlington Parish.

There are so many major missing factors in this section that its conclusion – that the “broad location is assessed as having a minor negative effect on the climate change SEA objective in the short, medium and long term” – cannot be taken seriously. Respondents to this consultation cannot be expected to suggest mitigation measures without necessary basic evidence.

Flood risk

The flood risk assessment is even more extraordinary in its paucity than the climate risk assessment.

There is no mention of the process having followed the MHCLG guidance on flood risk (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change#site-specific-flood-risk-assessment-checklist), there is no evidence of a sequential approach having been followed by the New Towns Taskforce before they decided to recommend the Adlington site and nor is there particular evidence to support that the site passes the exception test.

There is no specific mention of the two river catchment areas that the site lies within and there is no reference to the high water table which CPRE drew attention to in their report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington’ (pages 12-15 inc.) or to the 120 ponds that Cheshire Wildlife Trust identified in their report ‘Baseline Assessment of Ecological and Landscape Features of the Adlington Area’. 

There is an acceptance that “The introduction of 14,000-20,000 new homes, other uses and associated infrastructure will result in the loss of greenfield land and introduction if significant areas of hardstanding, which is likely to increase surface water run-off and has the potential to significantly increase flood risk both onsite and offsite” (page 456), but there is an unrealistic reliance on SUDs and permeable hardstanding to solve the problem. It is not explained how permeable hardstanding helps when there is a high water table.

Most extraordinary of all, with no evidence presented to support the conclusion, the overall assessment is that the broad location would have “a minor negative impact on the Flood Risk SEA objective in the short, medium and long term”.

The fact of the matter is that, from a flood risk perspective, this site is wholly unsuited to large scale development.  It remains to be seen whether there is a sustainable location in this area for a very modest sized development to place on land not prone to flooding and which is not land that has special ecological value or which is used for food production.

Health and wellbeing

Not for the first time in this submission, CPRE would like to reference last year’s report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.  The rapporteur argued that there was a strong case for renaming all environmental impact appraisals ‘Environmental, Social and Human Rights Impact Assessments’ (ESHRIAs) and she produced an ESHRIA framework.

She wrote of the presumption to approve projects based on various influences, the absence of sound assessment methodologies and the focus on check boxes and risk mitigation rather than harm avoidance.  And she reminded all states of their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, particularly the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and calls for thorough assessments to be conducted.

The SEA makes no attempt to list all the ‘green’/open space areas that would be affected. It fails to mention the North Cheshire Way, the Bollin Way or the sites identified by Cheshire Wildlife Trust including the ancient woodlands and it admits that construction on the scale of that originally envisaged by the New Town proposal would have ‘a significant negative impact’ on human health and wellbeing during the construction phrase, naming particularly residents in Adlington, Prestbury and Bollington. (It is not clear why the residents of the adjoining parishes of Poynton and Pott Shrigley are not named – or the communities of Rainow and Mottram St. Andrew who would be impacted, albeit to probably a likely lesser extent). But, extraordinarily, it claims that – in the medium and long term – there would be ‘a significant positive effect’ whilst, at the same time, admitting “the nature and scale of health and recreation facilities as well as open space and green infrastructure to be delivered is not known at this stage”.

Historic environment

The overall assessment for this section of the SEA is recorded as “having a significant negative effect … in the short term, medium and long term”.

This is hardly surprising in view of the fact that Grade 1 Adlington Hall and its listed historic parkland and setting would be almost totally surrounded by a built, town, environment if the original recommendation went ahead – as the illustrative map on page 37 of CPRE’s report ’Why, on earth, Adlington’ clearly depicts.

However, the mitigation column says nothing about maintaining the asset of Adlington Hall, which is in need of renovation.

Landscape and townscape

This section commences with the following opening statement: “There are no National Parks or landscapes within the broad location, however there is one National Park (Peak District) within 15 km”. This is the type of statement (quite ludicrous to anyone familiar with area) which so clearly exposes the fact that this SEA was a desktop exercise.  The Adlington Parish, but for a few metres, has a boundary with the Peak District National Park and the eastern side of it sits within the area designated in the Cheshire East Local Plan as the ‘Peak District National Park Fringe’.

As quoted on page 18 of the CPRE report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’, part one of Policy SE 15 in the Cheshire East Plan says:  “Within the Peak District National Park Fringe, development that would affect the setting of the Peak District National Park will be resisted where it compromises the statutory designation and purposes of the National Park”.

Not only has this desktop exercise failed to pick up this hugely salient point, it fails to mention that the land affected is Green Belt and it fails to mention the Local Plan at all in this section. Yet the Plan has much to say about the landscape. The CPRE report quotes it extensively on page 17, noting that Adlington is in a ‘Higher Wooded Farmland’ category.  The description of this is:

“A well-managed rural landscape between the Peaks and the Plain valued for its rural character and qualities which are offered in close proximity to urban areas.  It is characterised by a high density of wooded, historic field patterns and interspersed with semi-natural habitats including lowland grassland and small mosses, meres and ponds.  Provision for recreation in the landscape is good and aligns with ecological and heritage conservation.  The rural farmland has a low density settlement pattern with a distinct vernacular.

The overall management strategy for this landscape should be to conserve the rural character and quality of this densely wooded farmland, conserve the valued semi-natural habitats and restore the traditional field pattern with hedgerow boundaries and hedgerow trees where these have been lost” (page 128,CEC LPS).                    

The SEA admits that “there is likely to be a significant change given the scale of the proposed development in a broad location that is predominantly greenfield/agricultural lane and relatively flat with views across the site.  As a result, the scale of the proposed development will introduce a significant level of light pollution in a rural area with negative effects”.

Inexplicably, though, the conclusion is: “Overall, the Adlington, Cheshire East broad location is assessed as having a minor negative effect on the Landscape and Townscape SEA objective in the medium and long term”. 

By any measure, this conclusion beggars belief. The only mitigation measures (suggestions for various strategies) are not ones that would or could make any difference to the fact that a very rural area would change totally and become a town or a very large housing estate.  How can this be ‘a minor negative effect’?  This is a seriously defective section of the SEA.

Land use, geology and soils

This is another section of the SEA with seriously incomplete information.

For geology it does no more than quote a sweeping overarching statement in Cheshire East’s Local Plan – that there are 21 Regional Important Geological sites in the Cheshire East area.  It makes no attempt to drill down to the local level or to research any other sources. It therefore completely misses the fact that the entire area around Adlington and Poynton is riddled with old coal mining shafts and worked seams. This important geological information is flagged up, with a map from the Mining Remediation Authority, on page 21 of CPRE’s report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’ which is on the CPRE Cheshire Branch website.

It is also apparent that the writer of this section was not curious enough to visit the dedicated website of the developer, Belport, who promoted Adlington New Town.

That website lists as ‘Uncertainties’ “The extent of total land take for the development of the new town across the broad locations” and “the layout of proposed development across the broad location of the proposed new town”.  This information is provided on their Adlington New Town website under ‘Early Proposals’ (https://www.adlingtonnewtown.com/earlyproposals/)  and also roughly illustrated in the CPRE report on page 37.

Nevertheless, at least this section of the SEA recognises, on page 463, that there would be a significant loss of greenfield and agricultural land, including areas of best and most versatile land, and therefore, in respect of the long term, it concludes: “there is still the potential for a significant negative effect as a result of the permanent loss of greenfield and agricultural land”.

Materials and waste

This section is not up-to-date. It states that “Within the broad location, there is one permitted waste management site/ facilities”.  There are none.

There were two within the wider area – one at Anson Road in Poynton and one at Albert Road, Bollington.  Both were closed in 2024 as part of cost-cutting exercises by the local authority. It is also likely that the statement about there being 11 waste sites within 15 km is wrong. There are only three sites in Stockport. A couple, or just possibly all three, may be within 15 km. but that is the maximum.

This section of the SEA needs to be revisited with up-to-date base information.

Population

This section appears to be predicated entirely on Cheshire East Council being content to accept a New Town or a major development at Adlington and on the housing figures in Adlington counting towards Cheshire East’s housing targets.

The impression gleaned is that this section’s author is unaware of the fact that Cheshire East Council have objected very strongly to the New Towns Taskforce recommendation that a New Town should be built at Adlington. The local authority has not allocated this area for development in its Local Plan and has argued that all housing sites should be brought forward through the Local Plan process.

The SEA accepts that, if the New Town should go ahead, “The existing communities of Adlington (approx. population of 1,081) and Prestbury (approx. population of 3471) are most likely to be impacted by the development of a new town in this broad location” and “There is a risk that the identity of these communities could be lost without sensitive planning” (page 467).

The text also speaks of the risk of a coalescence with Bollington to the south but, ironically, says nothing about the risk of coalescence with Poynton and Woodford despite the development pressures there. Here again, it would appear the author is unaware of the present situation which CPRE has been at pains to explain in its report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington’ and on page 6 of this submission.

The ‘minor positive and ‘minor negative’ assessments bear no relationship to the reality.

Water resources (quality and quantity)

As identified by CPRE in their report, ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’, the SEA acknowledges that the river quality in this area is moderate or poor. It also admits that water quality would further decrease if the development went ahead. However, it only classes this as having ‘minor negative effects’ in the short term.

The SEA goes on to say “The broad location does not fall within a water stressed area”, completely ignoring the declaration of an official drought across the North West of England in May 2025.  Due to the fact that this occurrence is ignored, the section comes to the conclusion that there is only the potential for a minor negative effect on water resources.  This, despite stating under ‘Uncertainties’: “It is not known if there is sufficient water resources available to meet increased demand as a result of the proposed scale of development” (page 469).

There is no reference in this section of the SEA to the latest rating that Ofwat gave to United Utilities, requiring it to deliver a significantly improved level of service for customers and the environment, or to the fact that a new water regulator is shortly to be brought into being. All these water issues were covered in the CPRE report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’ (on page 78).

Q.11

Do you have any suggestions for practical mitigation measures to address effects identified in the SEA report?  (Yes/ No/ Not sure)

A.11  Yes.

Taking into consideration all the matters presented in response to question 10 of this consultation response, the only ‘mitigation’ measure which would make sense in sustainability terms would be to drastically reduce aspirations for development in Adlington Parish to one or two small sites where appropriately designed housing (ideally affordable housing) could be provided in order to meet local needs, where:

• there are no flooding or high water table issues
• there are no harmful ecological or landscape impacts
• there is no productive agricultural land
• new highway infrastructure does not need to be provided
• the land has no special designations and important trails/footpaths are not affected

Q.12

Do you have any other feedback on the SEA report, including the issues and effects identified therein?

A.12  This is a seriously defective, superficial, report, as must be evident from our detailed response to question 10 in respect of the Adlington site.

This SEA should not be the basis for the government making long-term decisions on the future of this part of North East Cheshire.  Most of the points we flag up apply equally to any large scale development of the area as they do to the imposition of a New Town.

N.B. CPRE would like to understand what will happen next with those sites which have been placed in the ‘alternative’ list and to be appraised about who will be in charge of progressing plans for the alternative sites (ie. who the contacts will be)  and whether or not the sites will be submitted to the Local Plan process, to the strategic development strategy process or to some other process.

Section 3.3: Proposed New Town locations

Q.13

Do you think the 7 locations proposed for the New Towns programme are the ones most likely to meet programme objectives?

A.13  Not all of them. As stated in response to question 7 of this consultation, CPRE has made known its tentative endorsement for the following:

• Manchester Victoria North
• Leeds South Bank
• Brabazon and the West Innovation Arc
• Milton Keynes
• Tempsford

However, in addition to having major objections to Adlington, it is also not supporting Chase Park and Crews Hill in Enfield or Thamesmead in Greenwich.

In common with Adlington, Crews Hill is a Green Belt site, mainly farmed (3b quality). Developing it would lead to the sprawl of the metropolitan area over the countryside and it would pull resources/ emphasis away from brownfield sites. Also, London CPRE Branch has a number of issues with Thamesmead as explained in answer to question 8 of this consultation.

Section 4.1: Government offer and Section 4.2: New Towns planning policy

Q.14 – Q.24

CPRE National Office will be answering these questions in their consultation response.

Q.25 – Final question

Is there anything else you would like to tell us that you think is relevant to this consultation but has not been covered in previous questions?

A.25  We would like to draw attention to:

(1)         The publication that National CPRE published in summer 2025 when the outcome of the work by the New Towns Taskforce was being awaited: ‘Principles for New Towns done well’, which is available on the national website here:  https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/principles-for-new-towns-done-well.

The guide expands on the following 10 key principles –

1. Brownfield first, sustainable locations
2. Meaningful community engagement
3. Integrate and protect green space and nature
4. Housing diversity for inclusive communities
5. Encourage market disruption
6. Integrated transport planning
7. What goes where to create a sense of place
8. Carbon neutral development
9. Transport accountability
10. Secure long term success

And to

(2)  The substantial work that the House of Lords Built Environment Committee has been carrying out on New Towns:  https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/518/built-environment-committee/publications/. (CPRE’s ‘Principles’ document was fed into this work).

CPRE Cheshire Branch’s report ‘Why, on earth, Adlington?’ highlighted an earlier module examined by the committee, ie. ‘Laying the Foundations’ which focused on ‘Practical Delivery’ (on pages 28 and 29).  However, since CPRE’s report was published, the committee has released the findings from their latest module, ‘Creating Communities’.  These were that:

• Placemaking should be people-centred, nature-rich and locally distinctive
• Health and inclusion must be designed in from the start, not retrofitted
• Masterplanning must be flexible, phased and infrastructure first
• and, the true value for money comes from early investment, patient capital and ‘meanwhile’ delivery; cutting corners will cost more

As with its earlier report, the committee called again for the government to establish a single, autonomous, central body, reporting directly to a cabinet level minister with sufficient authority to co-ordinate departments, steward quality and manage new town assets over the long term.  The committee also repeated its call for a compelling national vision.

More information

Respond to the New Towns programme consultation at GOV.UK

CPRE Cheshire Adlington information hub