Objections to Cheshire East Council’s planning application 23/4152M need to be submitted no later than submitted no later than Thursday, 1 January 2026

Friends of Poynton Pool’s Summary of Concerns

Application 23/4152M for spillway works at Poynton Pool was originally submitted for approval by Cheshire East Council (the applicant) to Cheshire East’s Strategic Planning Board (SPB) in April 2024.

A copy of our objection to the previous application in January 2024 is here: 50-page objection. After 18 months Cheshire East Council submitted minor amendments to include a trash screen and an emergency drawdown facility, which were components of the proposal from the Friends group’s reservoirs professionals. A new consultation was then opened, which ended on 7 November 2025. A copy of our most recent 2025 objection is here and we are working on our objection to the newly submitted documents.

On 11 November 2025, we were advised by the applicant that ‘refinements’ were being made to the application, and these would not be ready for the November 2025 Strategic Planning Board.

With the planning officers now aware that there were alternatives submitted by the Friends group and accepted by the applicant and its engineers as viable, it was clear to us that the planning officers could no longer make a recommendation for approval as they had for the 2023 application, the summary of which is copied below.

On 12 November, the Planning Case Officer advised us “The application is still live, but it wasn’t ready for the SPB agenda on 19 November. We are looking at whether any alternative dates for a SPB meeting can be arranged before the next scheduled meeting on 28 January.” This is a clear indication that the application has been amended with the expectation that the changes will be sufficient to receive an officer recommendation for approval prior to the upcoming bird-nesting season, which would impose a legal constraint on the felling of trees and scrub vegetation. A special Strategic Planning Board has been convened to hear the application on 16 January 2006.

The April 2024 SPB deferred the application for the following 5 reasons

1. To consider and update where necessary any inaccuracies in the submitted data to ensure modelling is accurate.
2. To review the current condition and risks associated with the existing dam wall, and the impact caused by removal of trees on the dam.
3. Encourage engagement with third parties to consider / explain alternatives.
4. To instigate a further independent review, if necessary.
5. To review the location of the proposed mitigation and consideration of any alternatives.

These issues have not been addressed in this application and the following provides details as to why. You could use some (or all) of these suggestions in your objection, but remember don’t just copy and paste, or your objection may be disregarded.

1 – Options for spillway works at Poynton Pool are disproportionate to the risk

The Option 3C design process by Jacobs was completed when reports (wrongly) showed that the level of risk of upper dam failure, with or without additional rain events due to climate change, fell into the ‘unacceptable’ range of risk when by the engineer’s own measure it was a ‘tolerable’ – As Low as Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) risk.

Jacobs own risk assessment now identifies that the risk of dam failure at Poynton Pool is within tolerable limits which alone demonstrates that there are no “clear overriding reasons for allowing the development.” This is not communicated in the revised reports submitted as part of the 2023 planning application and is not included in the 2025 submissions.

2 – The 2025 Flood study still uses inaccurate data

The volume of water in Poynton Pool is still incorrect in this updated flood study at 130,000㎥ and nearly double the actual volume. This is despite the Environment Agency commissioning a bathymetric survey from Binnies in 2024 which confirmed the actual volume of water and silt was 75,598㎥.

The inflow of water into the Pool is still overestimated because the catchwater device at the weir on the Park Lane Stream is an artificial diversion that can be closed at any time or completely abandoned. Also, residential drainage from nearby housing is routed away from the pool.

The flood model used to simulate conditions at Poynton Pool has not been calibrated. Inflows and outflows have never been monitored by the applicant or its engineers.

The authors of the flood study report acknowledge the shortcomings of the model when they write:

• “the probabilities are conditioned on methodological choices and expert judgement. The results may change if a different methodology is used”.
• “there are no gauging statistics in the Poynton Pool catchment area”.
• “No records of water-level recording in the Poynton Pool Reservoir were provided by Cheshire East Council”.
• “Historic flooding information could give verification data for the model. It is assumed that such information is not available”.

3 – The catchment area of Poynton Pool is not fully understood

Historic flow and levels data has not been used to calibrate the flood modelling, which is a potentially significant design weakness. The geology of the direct catchment area has not been fully investigated. The Jacobs defined catchment area includes old coal mines and presents a scenario where underground flows may prove larger than expected.

Furthermore, a significant part of the direct catchment drains to Norbury Brook, not into the pool. The applicant has been provided with clear factual evidence, from a study by ADAS (the UK’s largest independent agricultural and environmental consultancy, and provider of science-based advice and applied research), that in a previous planning application for open cast coal mining to the east of Towers Road, it was stated “The natural and artificial discharges flow into the surface water streams, principally the Norbury Brook”.

4 – A full site survey and ground investigation has not been undertaken

It is now almost 6 years since the Jacobs Flood Study (11/2019) recommended that a survey of the dam be undertaken to assess seepage through the embankment. There are no historical records of the construction of the dam and the applicant has failed to investigate the structure of the embankment.

The council, advised by the Jacobs engineer, has determined that the investigation of the dam embankment is not required to inform the design of their proposal. There is a considerable risk that the planned removal of trees and their roots, and the death and decline of trees that will be topped and damaged as acknowledged by the applicant’s arboriculturist, will lead to weakening of the dam embankment. The engineer has suggested that the make-up of the dam will be determined when the trees are grubbed out.

Without investigation, it is impossible to know if the existing embankment will tolerate the proposed work, or that the method of ‘Flood Resilience’ proposed, is the correct way forward. There is emerging evidence based on initial studies carried out by the Friends group that it is likely the dam embankment was designed to be permeable, and that the council’s proposal will render it impermeable and more likely to overtop.

Until the site investigation is carried out, the risk of future instability from root decay and any seepage cannot be assessed. That being the case, who owns these risks? The only 3 options are: Cheshire East Council, Jacobs or the design and build contractor appointed to undertake the works.

5 – There are viable alternatives

There are viable alternatives for Poynton Pool. Cheshire East Council has acknowledged that the Friends of Poynton Pool Option 1D meets the requirements of the Reservoirs Act whilst preserving the surrounding woodland and avoids breaching planning policies.

Option 1D avoids flooding into London Road North whereas the Council’s proposed Option 3C has been designed to do exactly this.

The financial information comparing the costs of the Jacobs 3C and the Friends of Poynton Pool 1D is a draft. The Council (as applicant) asked Friends of Poynton Pool to review and feedback on the submitted Currie and Brown estimates. We provided a response on Tuesday 21 October 2025 – as agreed with Cheshire East, but the draft had already been uploaded to the planning portal.

Our comprehensive technical review of the Issue 2 cost estimates produced by Currie and Brown identified significant omissions in the costings for the CEC Option 3C proposal and opportunities to substantially reduce the costs of Option 1D.

This review proposed a client cost for the Council’s proposed Option 3C of £2.1m, increasing to £6.9m when all associated scheme costs are included (eg. land value of Walnut Tree Farm, the £4m amenity value of the trees and additional landscape management costs for Poynton Pool and Walnut tree farm).

Having reviewed the costings, we suggested amendments to our Option 1D primarily relating to the culvert. We have proposed a more cost-effective solution would be to pipe jack (push pipes under the road without excavating a trench) under London Road. The reduced client cost of £1.9m for Friends of Poynton Pool Option 1D is consistent with the costs we presented at Strategic Planning Board in April 2024.

6 – There will be a significant loss of trees

The following are extracts from Cheshire East Council’s own planning officer’s report to SPB in April 2024.

“It has been confirmed that 78 trees and two 40m sections of Hawthorn Hedgerow will be removed as a result of the proposed development. 49 trees and 10 groups are also identified to be impacted by the proposals, largely by crown lifting over working areas or by RPA (our amendment – root protection area) encroachment. Trees adjacent to where the works are taking place are at risk from construction activities and windthrow.”

“The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy ENV 6 of the SADPD. The creation of two 40m wide gaps within this prominent roadside woodland that forms the boundary to Poynton Park will be a brutal intervention, and unequivocally harmful. Substantial weight is given to this harm.“

“The proposal results in a significant loss of trees from the existing woodland which is prominent in views from London Road North and from within Poynton Park. The loss of these trees is significantly harmful to the amenity of local area and the non-designated heritage assets of Poynton Pool and Poynton Park.”

Whilst this latest proposal no longer includes the two 40m clearings, these are two sections of the embankment with few mature trees and the recommendation of the 2024 Section Inspection Report to remove saplings and scrub with see these areas substantially cleared irrespective of the planning application. In addition, the recently submitted Heritage Statement (1.2.1.2) states “The next stage would be for the vegetation clearance for the full length of the works to be undertaken.” Friends of Poynton Pool’s assessment is that this revised December 2025 proposal will result in the felling of or irreparable damage to more than 120 trees at Poynton Pool, not including the removal of what has been ambiguously referred to as saplings and scrub removal of which is proposed to enable the development of a grass sward. This is likely to include some larger hollies, yews, and hawthorns.

The 2024 Section 10 Inspection report recommends “scrub and saplings on the dam crest between mature trees should be removed and regularly cut to promote good grass cover over the critical sections of the dam.” However, the submitted Landscape Plan proposes sowing of Emorsgate Seeds Woodland Mixture EW1 across the cleared areas and beneath the mature trees, which is a seed mix of native woodland wildflowers and grasses that will
not encourage the development of a grass sward as described in the Section 10 Inspection Report.

The original 2023 application included the removal of roots beneath the proposed footpath and the proposed 2m wide verge, with the justification being to prevent displacement of the new kerb by tree roots. The current proposal's Arboricultural Impact Assessment at 1.3, states “It is assumed that the tree roots present below this surface are well adapted to the soil conditions, and that a working methodology can be developed that will not require their loss during construction.” The specification in the Heritage Statement contradicts this and proposes excavation to a depth of 0.35 metres, which will remove all tree roots to that depth.

It is the opinion of the Friends of Poynton Pool arboriculturist that this is a matter that should be dealt with in the submission and a methodology for working adjacent to trees is required to enable the LPA to determine the effects of the application on trees. The risk of damage to trees from installation of the kerb is very high and in the absence of a detailed methodology, it must be assumed that the excavations and importation of clay soil will result in the
irreversible decline of the affected trees.

We consider the submitted detail insufficient to inform a reasonable assessment of the impacts on trees and that the local planning authority would ordinarily refuse an application that failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the retention and protection of trees during construction operations.

ONLY DETAILED DESIGN CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT TREES CAN BE RETAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT GOOD PRACTICE AND THE RELEVANT BRITISH STANDARD, BUT THE DETAIL IN THIS APPLICATION IS INADEQUATE. STRATEGIC PLANNING BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT IS MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO PROTECT RETAINED TREES, IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WILL NOT. IN RESPECT OF TREES AND ENGINEERING, THIS APPLICATION IS SHAMEFULLY UNPROFESSIONAL.

The relevant standard for considering trees in relation to development is British Standard BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendation, a crucial guideline for developers and local planning authorities to protect trees during development projects, ensuring healthy trees are retained and harm is minimized through surveys, impact assessments, and protection plans. Whilst it is reported that the trees have
been surveyed in accordance with this standard, there has been no attempt to apply the standard to the protection of trees. Instead, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment inappropriately and unprofessionally refers to NJUG Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in Proximity to Trees (2007), a utilities industry standard designed to minimise the impacts of trench excavations on trees during the
installation of underground services. This is an unprofessional misapplication of the guidance that will mislead Strategic Planning Board if not brought to its attention in the officer’s committee report.

The Arboricultural Impact Assessment states “It is expected to be possible to install protective fencing along the boundary of the works to protect the retained trees.” As a local planning authority, to avoid giving planning permission for a scheme that could not be implemented in accordance with BS5837:2012, Cheshire East Council would ordinarily require submission of full tree protection details with an application and to not impose this
requirement on the applicant would expose the planning authority to accusations of bias and professional misconduct, so hopefully, this matter will be fully resolved and the application reconsulted before determination, or refused at Strategic Planning Board.

The proposals have been amended to reduce the number of trees listed to be removed and at threat as 17 and17 respectively, but the actual impact will be much greater, and the applicant is either aware of this or is not consulting with its own arboriculturists. This application does not comply with good practice or the relevant British Standard, or Cheshire East Council tree and woodland policies.

7 – There has been no independent review

There has been no independent review of this proposal. No impartial or objective assessment to evaluate Cheshire East Council’s Option 3C alongside our alternative Option 1D. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis in the application, which is now in the public domain, materially overstates the cost of our proposal Option 1D. This is despite us agreeing a deadline with Cheshire East to provide feedback on the cost estimates early the following week.

The required rigour and scrutiny have not been applied. Adherence to best practice in local and national governance has not been systematically followed and does not provide enough protection against the wrong commercial and environmental decision being made. History is littered with public outrage in the aftermath of decisions made in haste.

Friends of Poynton Pool would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the Council to find a reasonable and balanced solution for Poynton Pool, to use CEC’s strapline “working for a brighter future together.”

This revised application was developed without any input from Friends of Poynton Pool or Poynton Town Council and was presented to the group two days before the current application went live.

8 – Lack of Genuine Public engagement

A petition, organised by FoPP and signed by 5,820 Cheshire East residents over a period of eight weeks, was formally submitted to CEC on Wednesday, 4 October 2023. Most signatures (c.5,000) were from Poynton adult residents. This equates to about 45% of the voting population in Poynton and illustrates the failure of CEC to engage and develop a plan of action that is acceptable to the community.

In 2024 there were 1,700 comments, almost all objections, lodged against CEC planning application 23/4152M for spillway improvements. The current plans are almost identical to those submitted in 2024. Whilst the council has engaged with Poynton Town Council and Friends of Poynton Pool, there has been no collaboration. The first meeting was not held until February 2025, 10 months after SPB despite repeated requests from us. Instead, the council’s Qualified Construction Engineer has chosen to denigrate the alternatives that have been proposed.

The Council has not complied with its petition guidance or their own policy and to date has clearly not listened to the voice of its constituents.

9 – The Mitigation Planting Scheme at Walnut Tree Farm has not changed

The application proposes that compensatory planting for the trees which will be removed at Poynton Pool is in Woodford, outside of Cheshire East. There will be no public access. Despite being asked by SPB “to review the location of the proposed mitigation and consideration of any alternatives” the current application remains unchanged.

The cost the Walnut Tree Farm element of the application is considerable at approximately £550,000 taking into account the land value, sapling and habitat planting and ongoing landscape management costs.

10 – Breach of policies

This application breaches 20 of Cheshire East Council’s own policies. Friends of Poynton Pool alternative Option 1D breaches none.

11 – Engineers Jacobs UK Limited (“Jacobs”) as sole provider

CEC has relied solely on Jacobs to conduct all surveys and reports that subsequently recommended Option 3C flood improvement resilience scheme, which forms the basis of this planning application. Inaccurate and incomplete baseline data coupled with a light touch due diligence approach has led to poor recommendations being made by Jacobs and subsequently adopted by CEC. The resulting proposed scheme design is disproportionate to any flood risk and will have a significant negative impact on this historic landscape and wildlife habitats.

12 – The scheme does meet the criteria for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

It is a point of dispute that the scheme does not meet the criteria for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):

At section 1.3.1 of the Environment Assessment (EA) report the size of the area impacted is stated as 0.76ha. This was an increase over the originally submitted 0.19ha, which was queried by FoPP at the time of the consultation and whilst, because of our objections it was increased, it remains inaccurate. As an example, it does not include the tree cover on the edge of the pool which is clearly detailed as impacted on the mapping provided within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) report.

13 – The impact of the application proposal on the historical designed landscape is catastrophic

The loss of, or damage to mature trees will open up westerly views from within the Park to the extent that traffic on London Road North and the mid-20th century dwellings to the east will be clearly visible all year round.

The Council’s Planning Officer report to SPB in 2024 states:

“The associated removal of trees and the clearance of two 40m sections of woodland will,
however, be unequivocally visually harmful from vantage points within and outside of the
park…”

“The landscape character of the area will be harmed by the proposed development, and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies SE4 and SE2 of the CELPS, policies ENV3, and ENV5 of the SADPD, and policies EGB3 EGB7 and EGB8 of the PNP.”

14 – The Cheshire East Local Plan specifically identifies Poynton Pool as a Site of Biological Importance/Local Wildlife Site

Over 67 protected species have been identified at the Pool; 15 red listed. The EIA is required to ensure this protected habitat is not destroyed.

15 – Bat roosts are transitory in nature

The bat roost potential survey report is flawed in that is does not include all trees that could be used as bat roosts. There are many more than 16 trees (with 3 graded as high) that exhibit bat roosting potential out of over 200 trees onsite. The AIA report does not map more than half the trees with stems over 750mm diameter. Some of these show characteristics that could be potentially used by bats and they have not been surveyed. Further surveys of all potential bat roost trees throughout a whole flight season are needed to ensure any roosts are found. This should be supplemented with flight surveys undertaken within the woodland to help identify any emergence sites. The current flight surveys were completed away from the woodland outside of the 50m zone of influence. These reports are now out of date (legally required to be within 12 months).