Objections to Cheshire East Council’s planning application 23/4152M need to be submitted no later than Friday, 7 November 2025

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.

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.

We consider that 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.

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

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 by more than 100% 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.

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.

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. 

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 FoPP that it is likely the dam embankment was designed as a permeable weir, 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. Consequently, these risks cannot be assessed and they remain at large. That being the case, who owns these risks? The only 3 options; 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 (at up to 3㎥ million litres per hour).

The financial information in the application is draft. The Council (as applicant) asked Friends of Poynton Pool to review and feedback on the Currie and Brown estimates. We provided a response on Tuesday 21 October 2025 – as agreed with Cheshire East.

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 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 and are due to the risk and inflation adjustments which have been applied.

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.”

Friends of Poynton Pool FoPP’s assessment is that this proposal will result in the felling or irreparable damage of more than 240 mature trees at Poynton Pool.

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 next week commencing Monday, 20 October 2025.

The required rigour and scrutiny have not been applied. Adherence to best practice local Council 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 work with the Council to find a reasonable and balanced solution for Poynton Pool, to use CEC’s strapline “working for a brighter future together.”

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 permanent loss of trees from the two 40-metre wide clearings, compounded by the loss of, or damage to, the remaining 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 two 40m wide gaps which will comprise of only grassland post-development, which will contrast sharply with the natural, mature woodland either side of them, leaving large gaps into what was previously a relatively enclosed pathway and park beyond. Similarly, the feeling of enclosure, being detached from the highway activity and the natural experience of being within the park will be diluted as passing traffic will be clearly visible through these uncharacteristic gaps.”

“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).

16 – Risk to Public safety

The revised Option 3C proposal will involve creating two 40-metre-wide clearings, where there are no trees or shrubs, and a sloped embankment designed to allow a constant flow of water from the Pool into the adjacent B5092 should the Pool breach the dam. The trees and shrubs currently act as a natural barrier, substantially restricting pedestrians and pets to the footpath and containing them within the Park boundary. No replacement boundary treatment is proposed. Their removal will mean that a child or pet could easily run down the embankment and straight into the flow of traffic. The B5092 London Road North has four lanes of high-volume traffic and a 40mph speed limit. If someone is hit by a car at 40mph they are 90% likely to be killed.

17 – CEC is taking on a 29-year management plan

The Landscape Management Plan is scheduled for 30 years with the contractor only managing the first year including defects/liability. Financial provision for what will be a significant 29-year liability also needs to be addressed.