Adlington new town pitch fleshed out

If I lived in Adlington id be moving out asap

If the infrastructure and social spaces are done correctly then there’s nothing to dislike about this proposal.

Feudal system still works , then.

The picture shows Adlington in Lancashire, not Adlington in Cheshire

Thank you – This has been adjusted. Charlie

October 23, 2025 at 10:46 am

By Charlie Valentine

I still don’t understand why the government isn’t looking to build houses on brownfield sites first, which can be found in all NW cities and towns. These sites could easily provide more than 14k homes and in various types, investment would also those wider areas with better infrastructure and public transport. The governments decision not to progress with the Bootle/Liverpool new town speaks volumes. We don’t need to rush to build over our green fields and countryside, when we already have urban sites going to waste.

Does this country need more towns? There are towns all over the country struggling, so surely it would be better to invest in them as a priority rather than building new ones!

My late parents were Adlington residents. They would be appalled if they were still alive.

Jon P – if I lived in Adlington, I’d be holding onto my assets tightly, with a view to selling when the market value increases exponentially.

This is a disgrace.. this is a rural community and once it is covered by yet another sprawling housing estate it will be gone forever

40% affordable?
So less than what will be required on smaller, less viable (because they don’t have direct government support) schemes built on land in the greenbelt just up the road in Stockport and just down the road in Macclesfield?
Too many in the development industry need to realise that they’d have far greater chance of convincing people of the merits of their schemes if they weren’t taking the absolute …

I’m sure they can upgrade Adlington Station but the far bigger issue is needing to improve the pitiful level of service. I know this has been considered for other potentially significant developments along the same rail corridor and that it would be prohibitively expensive because to increase the level of service you’d have to twin-track the line where it joins the west coast mainline north of Cheadle Hulme. Alternatively you could create capacity for increased local services by building HS2…

I have lived in Poynton all my life and have seen Woodford developed. With the prospect of a further 1000 homes forecast in 2030, what further need have we of any more homes

Considering upgrades to the local railway station…….no capacity on the network……3 carriage trains are full by the time they get to Adlington. Platform lengths are too short for mainline trains. Access is very poor and no car parking. Just a few things which should be funded before anything else. If it is to a sustainable location other than car then this has to be the priority or else the local roads will be gridlocked. U till this is funded and committed in the first phase the proposal cannot be taken seriously.

Cant see how anything Belport say will give any “peace of mind” or “assurance” to residents of Adlington (or Poynton, Bollington, Prestbury, Wilmslow for that matter).
14000 houses, 40000 people, 20000 cars dumped bang in the middle of what remains of your rural greenbelt, all topped of by months of waffle ahead gaslighting you all that you are not being reasonable and whats not to like !

This is laughable
The rail service was deemed to be at maximum capacity back in 2013
The road network is non existent
The council is bankrupt
The hall and it’s 3000 acres is the most beautiful prime green belt
9 good producing farms have had notice served on them
There is not one point in the proposal that stacks up other than Belport make a fortune out of it
This is the ongoing mindless country ruination by Labour.

@Jon P. I live in Adlington and three properties that were sold have fallen through since the announcement

There has been no democracy here. Nobody will build on my village. Another Labour Fail

NIMBYs NIMBYing from beyond the grave, that’s a new one.

But appropriate to this time of year I guess.

It isn’t affordable housing that’s required. Affordable is subjective what one can afford another can’t. It’s Social Housing that’s needed but that’s not really a money making provision is it This development will ruin Cheshire East there won’t be a field between Macclesfield and Hazel Grove.

For me the detail is irrelevant but at least they acknowledge they are aware of the environmental impact. Although, having worked with property investors in the past, profit will always be more important than any environmental impact or even the community wellbeing.

This reads like an advert for utopia. Problem is this is uninvited and the only gain is for those exploiting the land. Loss of greenbelt, loss of natural habitat, loss of farm land count for nothing when developers move in. So much for government brown field sites, go for the easy to develop and ignore the long term loss of irreplaceable countryside. Once gone never returns. As for consulting? Not one jot, just read about in the Media. Take a ride or drive around Adlington and see what is at stake. 14-20,000 houses leaves nothing left. Welcome to even greater Manchester, starts at Macclesfield and runs all the way to Rochdale. Add to Adlington all the Greenbelt now under threat in Woodford, Bramhall and Hazel Grove. Please don’t believe life sciences as a driver, that investment is being/has been pulled and heading to the USA. Use your common sense, sign the MP’s petition.

What about the impact on the already busy roads and influx of 28 thousand ,plus, people needing hospital services at Stepping Hill !! A disaster waiting to happen

More destruction of our precious countryside.

The naivety of some who think brownfield first solves all problems. Land ownership is key, added to that viability challenges, lack of surrounding infrastructure and often huge costs of remediation.

This is outrageous. Local people do not desire an improved station. We move to places like Adlington, Woodford & surrounding areas knowing its likely item transport system. We move here for the Greenspace! There are more than enough suitable Brownfield sites ripe for developing. These private stakeholders purchase these buildings & land knowing full well, years down the line they tear our countryside apart, make millions, then sell it all on, walk away and leave all the localstodeal with the atrocious infrastructure that has so many defects, from flooding, to poor installed paving, drainage & increased traffic & pollution. Tesco used to do it so they could open Tesco extra stores. They are NOT improving your life they are increasing their Cayman Island or Jersey bank balance

I live in the city suburbs but love to visit this area to get a taste of the countryside and beautiful landscapes. Horrified that more greenbelt and productive farmland is getting developed. Traffic is already terrible. Plenty of brownfield sites that need developing. Stop

As a residential professional and an aspiring “Northerner”, I wish to one day see this scheme built… and maybe even live there with a family… rather than rent a mould ridden flat over half my wage.

Peoples opinions of development, planning and affordable housing in this comment section is hilarious.
On average in England £20,000 per plot is provided by developers through s106 contributions (HBF, Unspent Developer Contributions).
On this site it could be up to £280 MILLION provided for Health, Education, Recreation, Flooding, Transport, Highways, to name a few.
However, it is up to the Local Authorities and councillors to use these funds themselves.
If people are complaining about the impact from development but funds are sourced to mitigate that but not spent, then maybe we should be addressing the councillors, not the developers, for the decline of a locality.

Not a single mention of where potentially 20,000 children will go to school , 40,000 or more will need GP’s , Macclesfield hospital is already at breaking point and Cheshire East Council is nearly bankrupt. Who is going to pay for all the new schools, Doctors and Hospital needed ?
Add on the destruction if ancient forests, trees and wildlife habitat that will be lost. Its a disgrace.

@at 7:02 am By Anonymous its not naïve at all, brownfield sites have been redeveloped since WW2. The government can help with funding for remediation work, these sites need and must be reused so they can be useful and productive once again and not continue to blight their neighbourhoods. Do you think we should just leave them abandoned? The overall benefits of redeveloping brownfield sites to housing or employment uses are far greater and long-lasting than building the same old boring rammed in cookie cutter houses which haven’t changed architecturally for 30 years with zero public transport on countryside we should be looking to protect.

In reply to Alan, have you actually looked at the greenbelt map of the NorthWest, practically all the land from Northwich to Wigan both East and West, that has not already been built on is designated greenbelt. Both GM and LCR are currently growing faster the the rest of England and I’m guessing we all think that’s good thing, but apartments on brownfield don’t meeting the need of families (we could build out brownfield less densely, but that doesn’t conserve greenbelt either). We can argue whether it’s Adlington or somewhere else.

@ October 24, 2025 at 12:01 pm
By Rich X

Townhouses on brownfield can house families.
It’s true that it’s unrealistic to have a brownfield only policy. Some greenfield around transportation nodes (like Adlington) would be idea for development, but I’d follow models like Nansledan.

Still, the Adlington proposal could be better than most – they’ve got Studio Partington on the project, and their work on Derwenthorpe near York is marvellous.

The Housing Crisis Paradox – We’re concreting over the greenbelt for towns that might never fill up. The UK’s natural population is already declining – deaths exceed births. Every bit of projected growth depends on 340,000+ net migration annually continuing indefinitely. That’s a massive political gamble.
What happens in 20 years when those new towns are half-empty because migration policy changed? You can’t un-build a town or restore green belt. We’re permanently sacrificing countryside for a demographic projection that hinges entirely on one volatile policy lever.
Fix planning rules, build up not out, use brownfield first. Don’t bet the green belt on migration trends that could reverse with a single election.

@GetItBuilt, the government can help with the costs of redeveloping brownfield sites, but that money has to come from somewhere. So the decision has to be made to either increase taxes or cut existing government services. Which is it to be?

England, my England.
“Housing” crisis is a convenient misnomer used by our leaders and developers to justify their ongoing incompetence and greed.
The country is now polarized between “own property” vs “don’t own property” hence the nimby accusation which means these massive housing developments usually win the argument.
The factual reference our politicians and media are either terrified or have a convenient blind spot :–
“Unsustainable population growth caused by 30 years of policy-driven mass immigration that the economy is completely addicted to, the blob will never allow to stop, while the British public specifically voted and continue to vote against” crisis.
This shocking thing at Adlington is unprecedented. Fight, protest and vote accordingly.

@Sten there is plenty of money in the system already which could be used to support brownfield development. We can not leave large sites in Birkenhead, Salford and Bradford etc unused and unloved which could provide thousands of new homes and turn those areas around. We still have thousands of empty houses with no credible plan to bring these back to being homes. Making existing towns and cities better for everyone should always come first, and then we can look at greenfield sites.

As Landscape Architect CMLI and someone who lives near the proposed site, I find this vision of a “parkland town” deeply troubling. Behind the polished language and promises of affordability lies a plan that would irreversibly transform a cherished rural landscape into a sprawling urban extension. Adlington Hall and the River Dean are not just picturesque backdrops — they are part of our living heritage, woven into the identity of this place.
The idea of 14,000 homes — potentially rising to 20,000 — on greenfield land feels like a betrayal of everything that makes Adlington special. This isn’t just about buildings; it’s about the loss of biodiversity, and the sense of place that generations have known and loved. No amount of cycle paths or “outward bounds hubs” can replace the beauty of farmland and woodland that will be bulldozed to make way for this development.
We are told that half the land will remain open space — but open space framed by thousands of new homes is not the same as countryside. It’s a managed compromise, not preservation. And while Adlington Hall may be opened to the public, it will sit at the heart of a town that never asked to exist.
This proposal is not progress. It’s a rupture. And it deserves far more scrutiny, transparency, and genuine dialogue with the communities who will bear its consequences

As someone who lives near the proposed site, I am devastated by the vision of this so-called “parkland town.” Behind the language of affordability and sustainability lies a plan that would wipe out a living landscape — the fields, woodlands, and heritage around Adlington Hall and the River Dean. Up to 20,000 homes on greenfield land would shatter the biodiversity, and rural character that make this place so special. Promises of “open space” ring hollow when countryside is replaced by managed green strips bounded by streets and housing. This is not progress but an act of erasure — a loss that cannot be undone — and it demands far greater scrutiny and honesty from those driving it.

Adlington is a moderately affluent rural hamlet.
I’m have little doubt that the proposal for 40 ‘affordable housing’ is ringing loud alarm bells with the local residents who will look at this as an effort to turn their hamlet into the modern equivalent of a council estate.

How does giving all the farmers notice to quit their farms count as “working with local farmers” unbelievable!

Comments on this story are now closed. If you have any information you want to make our news team aware of, please email [email protected]

This is a dreadful proposal that will destroy very many acres of productive greenbelt land, along with lots of the natural species that live in this beautiful area.

Infrastructure & low cost house numbers are just words and never come to pass.

Its the usual developer words salad, just slime