Include some or all of these. Please use your own words: the points are set out in detail so you understand them, not so they can be copied.

• This is Green Belt, not “grey belt”.
  The Council’s own 2015 Green Belt Assessment found this land makes a “significant contribution” to stopping urban sprawl and to keeping Wilmslow and Alderley Edge apart. “Grey belt” is land that does NOT strongly serve these purposes. This land does. That makes the scheme inappropriate development, which must be refused unless there are very special circumstances, and none have been shown. In June 2026 a Government planning inspector dismissed an appeal for 6 homes on the Rylands land off Alderley Road for exactly this reason: the land “plays a fundamental role in preventing the sprawl of Wilmslow towards Alderley Edge” (Appeal 6005219).
  Jones Homes will say the Council’s housing shortfall justifies building here. But the Government has already decided what a shortfall unlocks: “grey belt” land, not Green Belt that strongly stops sprawl. In the June 2026 appeal the Inspector accepted that the Council cannot show a five-year housing supply, and still refused the homes because the harm to the Green Belt was not outweighed. This scheme would add 88 homes to a shortfall of about 4,500, while permanently losing Green Belt that the Council’s own evidence says matters.

  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) GB2, GB6, GB7, Annex B, Annex E.

• It opens the door to more.
  The scheme would push Wilmslow’s built-up edge about 200 metres into open fields towards Alderley Edge. The plans show another field next door marked “land under control of applicant”. Build on this site and the next becomes easier. The developer’s own flood report shows this is already in mind: its drainage calculations include “the smaller parcel within the site boundary reserved for a future phase”, added “to display potential further development”. The new rules ask whether development would “fundamentally undermine” the remaining Green Belt, and that includes what comes next. The same Inspector found that even 6 homes would do so.

  NPPF GB7(1)(g)(i), Annex E.

• The flood risk has still not been properly assessed.
  The Environment Agency objected last year because the flood report did not take climate change into account for Whitehall Brook and did not use its river flood modelling. The reissued report (August 2026) still does not. The Council’s flood authority required the drainage to be designed for a 45% increase in rainfall from climate change; the developer has used 40%. The developer’s own drainage calculations flag “flood risk” in the design storm.

  Jones Homes say storage basins will control the water. But basins only slow water down. They don’t reduce it. Building over these fields means more water reaching Whitehall Brook, spread over a longer period, and it is long wet spells that flood this area. The Council’s flood authority asked for storms of up to seven days to be tested; the developer has tested storms of up to 24 hours. The outfall discharges into the brook’s flood zone, and nobody has agreed to maintain any of it.

  NPPF F4, F7, F8.
  

• Nobody has agreed to maintain the drainage.
  

  The scheme depends on two large drainage basins, a flow control into the brook and a sewage pumping station. One document says United Utilities may adopt them “to be confirmed”; another says a private management company will look after them. The developer wants the question of who is responsible left until after permission is granted. The rules require maintenance arrangements to be in place for the lifetime of the development.

  NPPF F8(2)(b).

• The drainage basins conflict with Manchester Airport’s safety conditions.
  

  The airport requires basins to be normally dry and to empty within 48 hours, because standing water attracts birds that endanger aircraft. The flood report says the basins are “designed not to hold water”. The landscape plan for the same basins says their base is “intended to remain wet all year round”. Both cannot be true.

  Cheshire East policy GEN5 (aerodrome safeguarding); Manchester Airport response, 17 November 2025.
  

• Wildlife surveys are still incomplete.
  

  No survey for great crested newts: their presence is simply assumed. No proper barn owl survey, although the Council’s ecologist required one before any decision. Only 4 breeding bird survey visits where guidance recommends 6. No assessment of the effects on the two internationally protected wetland sites within 10 kilometres. The biodiversity net gain report is marked “to follow”, so the application is incomplete.

  NPPF N2(2), N6.

• Important hedgerows and trees with veteran features would be damaged.
  

  Eleven of the 18 hedgerows are “important” under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. Four would be removed entirely and six more cut through. Two groups of trees contain trees with veteran features, which national policy treats as irreplaceable. Roads and hardstanding are planned inside the root zones of five other retained trees, with the engineering details left until later. The Council’s ecologist said the woodland must be kept in full; the revised report still shows some woodland being lost.

  NPPF N2(1)(d), N3, N6(2).

• The access road runs along the Welton Drive Local Green Space.
  

  The Welton Drive field is designated Local Green Space in the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan. Under the new rules, Local Green Space must be treated as Green Belt with no grey belt exception. All the traffic from 88 homes would run along the field’s edge, past the gate used by children and dog walkers.

  NPPF HC8; Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan CR3.

• The access road and its retaining walls would run along the Welton Drive Local Green Space.

  The Welton Drive field is designated Local Green Space in the Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan, and national policy gives Local Green Space the same protection as Green Belt, with no grey belt exception. The developer’s drainage drawing shows retaining walls along the new road, “to vary between 450mm to 2500mm” in height, with their extent still “to be confirmed following detailed design”. All the traffic from 88 homes would pass along the field’s edge, past the gate used by children and dog walkers. This would harm the field’s open, green character and people’s enjoyment of it, and bring vehicles into conflict with people walking to and from it.National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) HC8, DP3, P3, TR4; Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy SE 4; Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan CR3.

  Flood Risk Assessment, Appendix F, Outline Drainage Strategy drawing 109939-PEF-HDG-01-DR-D-00001 Rev P14. Page 53.

• The housing mix is wrong for Wilmslow.
  

  Of the 48 homes for sale, none has one bedroom and only four have two, while 25 have four or five bedrooms. Cheshire East’s adopted policy points to far more smaller homes. The developer’s own housing consultant describes the Council’s policy as “flawed”. The Council’s Affordable Housing Team objected to the affordable homes being grouped together; they still are.

  NPPF HO8; Cheshire East policy HOU1; Wilmslow Neighbourhood Plan H3.