In accordance the Council Procedural Rules, a total period of 30 minutes is allocated for members of the public to speak at Council meetings. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 2 minutes, but the Chair will have discretion to vary this requirement where they consider it appropriate.
Members of the public wishing to speak are required to provide notice of this at least three clear working days’ in advance of the meeting and should include the question with that notice. Requests to speak and questions should be submitted via the Register to Speak form.
Petitions - To receive any petitions which have met the criteria - Petitions Scheme Criteria, and falls within the remit of the Committee. Petition organisers will be allowed up to three minutes to speak.
Minutes:
Mr Robert Dougals spoke in relation to engine idling and asked if the Leadership, at their next meetings with the Government’s Departments of Transport and Environment, call on them to urgently pass legislation to increase the fine for engine idling to at least £100, if not more, so that the punishment was more fitting for this very serious crime.
Cllr M Goldsmith, Chair of Highways and Transport Committee, in response stated that whilst air quality in Cheshire East was classified as good, the Council recognised the health risks associated with engine idling and were committed to reducing emissions wherever possible. “No Idling – Switch Off Engine – Reduce Emissions” signage had already been installed at the Brereton Heath Nature Reserve car park. In addition, further signage would be installed at the authorised parking areas along Brereton Heath Lane to reinforce this message and help protect the health and wellbeing of visitors to the area. The Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers would also draw drivers’ attention to these signs when they were not being adhered to. Regrettably, however, officers had limited powers in forcing motorists to switch off their engines, but most people complied when asked.
The levels of penalty associated with such offences were set by government regulations and therefore the Council had no power to increase these on its own. However, the inconsistencies raised today would be highlighted by Cllr Goldsmith at the next PATROL (Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London) meeting, which was a statutory joint committee of over 300 local councils that managed and enforced parking and traffic restrictions in England and Wales that were outside of London. It offered a powerful and collective voice for lobbying government for the change requested; it was hoped that action could be taken for the government to enact on this issue too.
Bollington Town Councillor Jon Weston spoke as the Mayor of Bollington and member of the Joint Working Group comprising the towns and parishes of Adlington, Poynton and Prestbury, Bollington, Mottram St. Andrew, Pott Shrigley and Rainow. He expressed his thanks to Councillors for coming together to put forward a joint proposition to drop the proposal for a new town in Adlington.
Cllr Weston stated that the New Towns Task Force claimed there was a housing shortage in Greater Manchester, but the latest joint development plan adopted in 2024 showed a surplus of 23,500 homes, with enough land identified to meet needs until at least 2039. In addition, the Task Force had proposed building a further 15,000 homes which were not included. Therefore, there was no agreed housing shortage in Greater Manchester at this time.
Cllr Weston stated that the Task Force described Adlington as a gateway between Greater Manchester and the rest of the northwest - but the facts did not support this.
Cllr Weston stated that the evidence showed that there was no urgent need for a new town at Adlington and no exceptional circumstances to justify releasing Greenbelt land and that the Council’s focus should remain on encouraging balanced, sustainable development that supported all communities.
Prestbury Parish Councillor Graham Naismith spoke on behalf of Presbury Parish Council in support of the motion to oppose the Adlington new town proposal. He stated there had been overwhelming feedback from residents objecting to this development. A new town of up to 20,000 houses in Adlington was not believed to be a realistic or economically viable approach to solving the perceived housing shortage.
Cllr Naismith stated that, in justification of the Adlington site, the New Towns Task Force had commented that ‘as a primarily Greenfield site, there will be minimal need for land remediation.’ He stated that, what this meant in practice, was that nearly 2,500 acres of highly productive farmland, which produced 4.5m litres of milk, over 3000 lambs, and 115 tonnes of meat products per year, would be lost to urban sprawl which would be highly damaging in the long term.
Cllr Naismith stated that, 20,000 houses would create an additional demand of approximately seven million litres of water per day and asked whether a new reservoir to support this demand would be built.
Cllr Naismith stated that, in respect of wastewater treatment, Bellport stated they would use the existing site in Prestbury, operated by United Utilities. However, even after a £50m upgrade project, this had headroom only for an additional 10,000 people. He asked whether the cost of this work would be presented as part of the decision-making process.
Cllr Clarke stated that a further major concern was transport. The New Towns Task Force report suggested improvements to Adlington railway station and increasing rail capacity. However, that would be very difficult to achieve as the line already carried intercity, cross country and commuter services.
Cllr Clarke stated that with limited rail capacity and no buses currently serving the Adlington area, it was certain that the new town would be unsustainable and totally car dependent, which would greatly increase traffic on congested local roads. The traffic forecast used to design the points and bypass in the A555 to the airport did not include a new town of 20,000 houses, so those would be overwhelmed.
Mr Nicholas Houseman stated that he objected to the Adlington new town proposal on the grounds of environmental damage, loss of Greenbelt land, loss of habitat, loss of valuable farmland, and problems with the infrastructure. He stated there were brownfield sites which were more suitable for development and for which the remediation of funds was, in his belief, available. Other factors were loss of livelihoods amongst farmers and other businesses, flooding risk, and a loss of carbon capture.
Mr Chris Sheppard stated that his observations were not just on a local basis and hoped that this would help the Council in pushing forward the arguments at a higher level. He referenced a United Nations Pact for the Future report, which was adopted in September 2024. The report gave a renewed momentum to the fight against hunger by helping to build more resilient, inclusive, and sustainable food systems for all.
Mr Sheppard stated that global deaths as a result of hunger ran into many tens of millions and were projected to increase considerably, resulting in increasing dangers of conflict. Mr Sheppard suggested that, in the case of the Adlington proposal, building on Greenbelt land was dangerously off course. He stated that the UN secretary had commented that hunger was affecting the lives of millions around the globe and that climate extremes were growing in intensity and affecting on global food, and proposing to build on greenbelt land was unwise. The number of additional deaths resulting from this proposal should be published.
The Mayor suggested to Mr Sheppard that he send a reference to the report to the Council, for it to be circulated to all Cheshire East Councillors for information.
Mr Peter Emery spoke on behalf of ‘Stop Adlington New Town’ as a retired town planner who had worked in both the public and private sectors for 50 years. He asked whether the Council accepted that the proposal failed to meet the legally binding Cheshire and Warrington Local Nature Plan, which required landscape impacts to be fully assessed. He explained that this provided clear grounds for preventing the development.
Mr Emery stated that all 12 new towns, apart from Adlington, involved brownfield land and were promoted by their district councils. Adlington was selected because there was one landowner for the site, making for easy land assembly. However, the Government would have to share land value uplift with the owner, which would necessitate more public money having to be used for expensive upfront infrastructure.
Mr Emery stated that Adlington was poorly sited and there were
severe capacity constraints in the highway and public transport
networks and utilities, which would require significant upgrades
and that it was an unsuitable, inappropriate and unsustainable
location for a new town and under normal planning circumstances,
Adlington would never see the light of day. He respectfully requested that the
Council inform the government that it totally objected to this
proposal.
Ms Sarah Burrows, speaking on behalf of the supporters of the Adlington Greenbelt, expressed strong opposition to the proposal for Adlington New town. She stated that this was not simply about additional housing, thousands of new residents, pressure on services, or the lack of infrastructure. It was about the permanent and irreversible loss of our countryside, our heritage, and its value as green open space. She stated that the proposal would effectively merge Macclesfield with Greater Manchester, leaving no green space between them; a decision could not be undone and would set a dangerous precedent for greenbelt across Cheshire and the UK.
Ms. Burrows stated the parts of the landscape had remained
virtually unchanged for over 700 years and contained ancient
woodland, veteran trees and centuries old hedgerows that supported
some of the UK's rarest species. It also provided productive
farmland, which provided food and milk vital to the UK market.
These were living systems that had developed over
generations.
Ms Burrows stated that the proposal had by-passed the democratic process entirely. Seven local councils had publicly opposed it, yet residents, environmental experts and town councils were not consulted before the proposal was announced. She stated there was contradiction between this proposal and the Government's own Environmental Improvement Plan. The development would remove 2,500 acres of greenbelt land, destroy ancient woodland and wildlife habitats, and wipe out multiple working farms. She urged the Council to oppose the plans for Adlington New Town.
Ms Ellie Goodfellow asked what parts of Bellport's proposal to the New Towns Task Force could now become public knowledge, as the new Towns report had now been released and why would it still need to remain completely confidential, as the original reason of land speculation no longer applied as the New Towns Task Force report had now been released. It would also be important to know why Adlington had been chosen and what exactly Bellport had said to the Government. She further asked what the cost breakdown for the £8 billion scheme figure was and who would pay for what parts of the necessary infrastructure. It was not feasible to expect the current Government to invest the necessary money, and Bellport had not made any promises. Who was going to pay for adequate water supply, sewage works, public transport, hospitals, schools, flood defences, etc. Without these, the project would put extreme pressure on services, both in Adlington and all the surrounding communities. Ms Goodfellow asked the Council to oppose this proposal on those grounds.
Cllr M Gorman, Deputy Leader of the Council, thanked the public speakers for the questions regarding the government's proposed Adlington new town, and thanked those in the public gallery for attending to make their feelings known on issue. He acknowledged that this has been a very difficult period for Adlington residents, which included his own family members.
Cllr Gorman stated that Adlington residents endured a great deal of uncertainty with the prospect of a large new town being built in their midst, and acknowledged that the communication, engagement and especially the consultation on this issue for this proposed development has been poor.
Cllr Gorman explained that as both leaders and as a Council, restrictive protocols concerning commentary and commenting publicly on this commercially sensitive scheme had been in place - and this continued to be the case.
Cllr Gorman noted his regret for the letter that was forwarded to Sir Michael Lyons, Chair of the Task Force in June, which was not drafted well. It gave the impression that Cheshire East’s Leaders were supportive of the Adlington proposal, which was not the case. At that time, it was considered that there may be calls for other sites and the intention was to encourage dialogue and engagement with the government.
Cllr Gorman recognised that, as the Chair of the Economy and Growth Committee, there was a critical need for appropriate housing to be built to support the workforce requirements of Cheshire’s businesses, some of them being world class that contributed enormously to the UK economy. Some of these businesses provided highly skilled jobs in life sciences, financial services, and advanced manufacturing, in the farming community and farming businesses. Many of these businesses were having major issues with recruitment and retention and some were considering relocating, or indeed had already relocated, to places like Manchester. 20% of the workforce travelled in each day, often enduring long commuter journeys, and appropriate housing was both expensive and hard to find. The Council had a responsibility to all its residents and businesses and had to make sure that it met the aspirations and ambitions of the local children, grandchildren, and young people, many of whom wanted to work and live and not just retire in the borough. However, building a new town without adequate infrastructure on Greenbelt, and in a location that strongly suggested it would become a dormitory town to service the needs of Greater Manchester, would not have the support of this Council.
Cllr Gorman understood that the Notion of Motion would be debated in full in this meeting and would impose the development of Adlington, and this would have his full support and the full support of the Cheshire East Independent Group and the administration of the Council.
Cllr Gorman explained that the Adlington new town proposal was not a Council initiative, and was submitted by Adlington Bellport Limited, the landowner - their submission to the government's New Towns Task Force as part of a national process to identify potential locations for new towns. The Task Force shortlisted 12 sites, including Adlington, and made its recommendations to government for further consideration.
The Council had not collaborated with government, the Task Force or Bellport in developing or promoting this proposal. Involvement to date had been limited simply to responding to requests for information. The programme was led by MHCLG with Homes England commissioned to review the Task Force recommendations, and it was understood that government had commissioned a Strategic Environment Assessment and Homes England was evaluating each of the 12 proposals.
The assessment was expected to be concluded by the end of January 2026. Government would then publish draft proposals and the SCA would be up for public consultation, enabling Cheshire Eastern town and parish councils, residents and businesses and other stakeholders to submit their views at that point. A final decision from government was anticipated in May/June 2026.
Cllr Gorman commented that the Council was acutely aware of the concerns raised by local communities, Councils and stakeholders about Adlington being one of the potential locations and again thanked the public for their attendance. Cllr Gorman encouraged the public to share feedback directly with MPs, MHCLG and Homes England to ensure local views were fully considered directly to government. The Council’s views would also be shared. The Notice of Motion today would enable the appropriate debate and discussion and challenge later.
Cllr Gorman stated that Cheshire East Council remained committed to a Local Plan-led approach to development, as set out in the adopted Local Plan Strategy and to ensuring that community views were clearly represented in all planning matters, including the views of residents, businesses and our young people.