Controversial plans for ‘safety’ works at Poynton Pool reservoir refused
Cheshire East Council's proposals to remove trees had nearly 10,000 objections
Last updated 19th Jan 2026
Controversial plans by Cheshire East Council to undertake disputed ‘safety’ works at Poynton Pool reservoir have been narrowly refused.
The council’s strategic planning board (SPB) voted by five to four to reject the application on the grounds of loss of trees and because there was not sufficient evidence to show the impact of the tree removal would not damage the bank.
Poynton Pool is classed as a large high-risk reservoir, meaning an uncontrolled release of water could endanger human life.
There is no record of it ever flooding but Cheshire East, as landowner, has a legal obligation to carry out works to ensure it is safe.
The decision comes nearly two years after the application was deferred by the SPB for the accuracy of the data to be assessed and to discuss alternative engineering options with third parties – something objectors argued still had not been properly done.
Ward councillor Hayley Whitaker (Con) said there had been nearly 10,000 objections to the scheme the council was proposing.
“They demonstrate a community that does not accept that these works are justified, proportionate, or the least harmful option for this historic park,” she told the SPB.
She asked councillors: “If the applicant were not the council, would you approve a proposal that relies on uncertainty if there’s known environmental impacts, and proceed despite viable, less harmful alternatives?”
The scheme put forward by the council – which originally involved uprooting about 80 trees – had been amended since 2024 and, the council said, would now see 34 felled at most and 17 at a minimum.
FoPP argued the ‘flawed’ proposal would destroy numerous trees.
The council’s scheme was costed at £1.2m. An alternative put forward by FoPP was costed at £3.5m by an independent assessor – although councillors questioned how these figures had been reached.
SPB member Cllr Tony Dean (Knutsford, Con) said: “One chartered engineer representing FoPP says that taking the trees out, even the reduced number of 34 or 17, will create the possibility of water seeping through, where the roots used to be, and creating a breach eventually.. others representing Cheshire East say that’s not going to happen, obviously, otherwise they wouldn’t have put the plan forward.”
At the beginning of the meeting, councillors were told that, planning officers had received a direction from the Secretary of State not to grant planning permission following a request to consider making a tree preservation order at the site.
The SPB could ‘resolve’ to approve, but a decision notice could not have been issued until the Secretary of State had decided on the TPO request.
Cllr Stewart Gardiner (Knutsford, Con) said the direction from the Secretary of State ‘would suggest that the officials in Whitehall believe that the trees are something that needs to be considered’.
He told the meeting: “I would be more inclined to support the proposal before us if it was the only option, but it isn’t.
“It clearly has significant environmental impacts and, as there is an alternative, which may be more expensive, but which is environmentally more acceptable that could be brought forward… I cannot support the proposal before us.”
Cllr Fiona Wilson (Macclesfield, Lab) said: “I don’t believe that proposal before us totally reassures me that we are mitigating those risks.
“The proposal includes removal of trees, the result of which may well undermine the banking and actually contribute towards the flooding risk, rather than actually stop that taking place.”
Cllr Martin Edwards (Crewe, Lab) moved the application be approved.
“We’ve listened to experts, and a proposal has been presented by experts. We need to do something. We have a legal requirement,” he said.
Cllr Heather Seddon (Congleton, Lab) agreed, and said delaying the works may have a detrimental impact on Poynton Pool itself.
“The council could well decide that they’ll just drain it because there’s risk to life,” she said.
The vote to approve the application was lost with four councillors in favour and five against.
Cllr Gardiner then proposed the application from the council be refused and this was carried.