Comment

Representation ID: 4903

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Percival

Evidence Base - Para. 1.19
I&O_5261
The 'Green Belt Study' "to be prepared" appears in the middle of your bullet list, when in fact much of the Local Plan considers options to expand onto 'Green Belt' and the countryside surrounding the rural towns and villages which sit outside the green belt (eg. Kelsall, Tattenhall etc). We think the Green Belt Study should be your priority given the growing body of evidence to support its importance. I quote from the 'Campaign to Protect Rural England': "The UK's green belt provides numerous environmental benefits, including absorbing CO2 , mitigating urban heat islands , supporting wildlife habitats and improving water management by absorbing excess rainwater to prevent flooding . It also strengthens food security by providing land for local farming and supports renewable energy generation, while offering accessible natural spaces for recreation and enhancing the beauty of landscapes near urban areas". 

Comment

Representation ID: 4977

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Baird

In response to Question IN 1
I&O_5336
Further important evidence needed is an assessment of available brownfield sites and most importantly, an assessment of unoccupied residences.  The infrastructure review should include evidence of adequate capacity of essential elements such as schools, health care provision, public transport and sewage treatment to cope with any proposed housing developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 5031

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: DERWENT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Agent: ATP

I&O_5390
We agree that the level of growth that is anticipated is unlikely to be capable of being met within the urban area. As such, opportunities for Green Belt release do need to be assessed and a Green Belt Study is a crucial component of that. However, this could be comprised of organic extensions to current settlement boundaries or through the delivery of larger parcels which may or may not be contiguous and/or commensurate in scale with the host settlement (or a combination of both approaches). The Issues and Options consultation document includes consideration of three scenarios all of which appear to be considering strategic sites rather than incremental or smaller scale release of sites adjoining settlement boundaries. In the context of Wincham (which is considered as part of a functional zone serving Northwich), we feel that these strategic opportunities are worthy of consideration but it is inappropriate that other smaller-scale opportunities appear to have been discarded. The Green Belt Study should have informed this consultation stage, which would have then allowed a more effective assessment of the other candidate sites. Our view is that the preferred way forward would be a hybrid including strategic parcels and smaller incremental extensions that are closer to existing local services. We do agree that Wincham and its environs do provide an opportunity to accommodate appropriate growth for housing and employment uses, both by virtue of its public transport connectivity and access to existing services and planned employment. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5073

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5432
In and of itself, the list of documents that will be considered in informing the new local plan seems to be a relevant amount of information. However, as all are "to be prepared" at this stage, it cannot duly inform policy currently.

Comment

Representation ID: 5129

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5493
The big question to me is where people actually work and the routes they want to or can take to work. In the Neston area most people go to Liverpool and many drive to Hooton as Neston station is a poor connection. Many other drive to the M56. Should new housing be nearer Mnachester, if they are all travelling that way? Does one partner work in on location and another in a dsifferent one and they want to live midway? The census is clear that Neston has more pensioners not financially active. Many have larger houses but there are few properties locally for them to downsize into and no affordable but good quality retirement village type options. Are you trying to solve the right problems?

Comment

Representation ID: 5280

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Denise Lamont

I&O_5646
We think the borough should prepare a  comprehensive urban capacity study that would identify brownfield land in the urban areas and opportunities for intensification, particularly in areas with good public transport or the potential to provide good walking and cycling to reduce the need for travel, and regenerate left-behind urban communities

Comment

Representation ID: 5327

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5695
I don’t think the evidence listed is enough to properly inform the new Local Plan. On paper it covers housing, transport and infrastructure in general, but it misses some of the day-to-day realities that people in Chester are already facing. For example, getting a GP appointment is already a struggle, with many surgeries full and waiting times rising. If more housing is added without a clear plan for extra GP capacity, things will only get worse. The same goes for schools: many local schools in Chester are oversubscribed and parents are already finding it hard to secure places for their children. I can’t see how further growth can be considered without proper evidence on where extra school places will come from. Traffic is another big concern. Roads in and around Chester are already busy at peak times, and simply adding a general transport study won’t be enough. What’s needed is a clear, local look at how new developments would affect congestion and whether the road network can realistically cope. In short, before setting out how much housing and other development is needed, the evidence should also show how basic services such as  healthcare, roads and schools will be expanded to keep pace. Without that, the plan risks placing even more pressure on facilities that are already stretched.

Comment

Representation ID: 5555

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_5927
N/A

Comment

Representation ID: 5590

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_5962
Don't know. Too much gobbledegook and side references. I am a long-term resident of Weaverham and my comments refer to Weaverham only. Why is Weaverham shown as part of Northwich while Cuddington is not? Weaverham Parish Council has tried very hard over the years to keep the village separate from the Northwich conglomeration. Weaverham is an ancient village which has had considerable house building over the last century. However although over 3000 homes, it still retains its village identity and all areas work together. It has a village green, cricket pitch. Community Centre, multi-games area, library, two scout halls, guide hall, The Lighthouse and junior swimming baths. There are two shopping areas, one on Northwich Road with 2 supermarkets and another on Lime Avenue with a variety of shops. There are two park areas, Owley Wood and Bottom Pitch Meadow. These facilities are being used by people from the new developments at Wallerscote, Winnington and Acton Bridge and Crowton, which causes problems due to the limited parking. The roads through the village to the A49 are also very busy and any extra traffic will cause major delays. There was a Northwich Transport Strategy several years ago, which identified the main pinch points in the area, BUT nothing has been done. There is already a proposal in development for 96 homes at Beach Farm on Wallerscote Road. Why is this not included in new house targets? Documentation and online.   The quality of the supplied maps is terrible. The blobs identifying the proposed development areas are vague. NOR12 covers the existing areas of Sandy Lane, Shadybrook Lane, Hunters Hill, Well Lane, Farm Road and more! The online app is not user friendly, it is almost user aggressive.     

Comment

Representation ID: 5609

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_5981
The list of additional evidence needed is extensive and the public's views on the draft findings should be obtained to help achieve a Local Plan that reflects the communities wishes. It is unclear to me wether more needs/ can  be done in establishing as many brownfield sites as possible before having to consider incursions in to the Green Belt. Is a call for Brownfield Sites a possibility?

Comment

Representation ID: 5697

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

IN1
I&O_6069
|No dont agree.  The approach does not take into account the individual characteristics of Neston and Parkgate. There is no mention of either Parkgate or Neston conservation area as a planning considertion. We regard the preservation of the Greenbelt surrounding Parkgate as an overriding priority and wouldnt be in agreement to build new houses that will alter the rural nature of nature.   Also the approach does not take into accout the impact of any development on the environment for example the area lies within a floodplan and is at risk of environmental degredation, investment required to deal with sewage - River Dee already has above average levels of sewerage dumped into the river from quayside.,  transport Any development will increase congestion on local roadworks; The Parade, Parkgate Road, Leighton Road and Boathouse lane are already struggling to deal with current traffic and parking volumes they arenot suitable to take anymore traffic or parking. Neston and Parkgate are small ancient local towns villages with a narrow road network with no capacity to develop/expand to cope with increasing volume of traffice. Neston has a railway statio that does not go directly to localareas of employment ege Deeside/Capenhurst/Ellesmere Port. Bus services are infrequent and poor and often held up. Local amenities, schools, doctors, nhs dentist are all over capacity currently.

Comment

Representation ID: 5709

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6081
You may not consider it to be "evidence", but the experience and views of the local population As a general point, this survey is ridiculously long and difficult to understand and complete. I would guess that most people will give up the will to live long before completing it. It would therefore not be a surprise to find a very low level of responses and that is what you'll end up using as a "consultation". Not really statistacally viable I think.

Comment

Representation ID: 5729

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Bridge

I&O_6101
Assume environment and nature are covered elsewhere

Comment

Representation ID: 5873

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Cowley

IN 1
I&O_6257
The Borough should prepare a 'comprehensive urban capacity study' which would identify brownfield land in urban areas including opportunities for intensification. this is particularly relevant for areas with good public transport and walking/cycling routes which would reduce the need to further strain road infrastructure hot spots.

Comment

Representation ID: 5876

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: lindsay traynor

I&O_6260
No I dont think there appears to be any review of grey land or brownfield sites, having spent a little while trying to find potential brown field sites there doesnt appear to be any up to date register of these land areas.  An urban capacity study should be conducted to assess any potential land which could be utilised before destroying our green belt.  I walk around Waverton alot and this morning I walked passed a development (actually within the boundaries of Christleton) on Brown Heath road on a former car garage.  2 huge footballer style mansions have been built there on a large plot, I am fairly certain this is not been the best utilisation of the land and that is just one example.  Waverton is not equipped for dealing with further development, there have been a number of accidents within the village and one death in the passed few years.  Increasing traffic within the village would only increase the already hazardous roads.  A proposal to extend the business park again would cause a large increase in traffic which is already an issue due to Stagecoach and particular Evri parcel vans,  There is no footway on either side of the road on Saighton Lane and I have had a number of near misses with traffic.  Footways are currently not maintained on the A41 sufficiently to allow anyone to walk safely into the village and to the bus stop on the A41, increasing the number of houses and traffic would only increase risks to pedestrians.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5938

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6327
I'd like to see clear evidence included showing have CWaC hit or missed their statutory Self Build targets. I'd like to see the dates of review of all Conservation Areas in CWaC included. I'd like to see the date of last review of all settlement boundaries, highlighting all recommendations previously made for further review and their current validity.

Comment

Representation ID: 6006

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Slater

I&O_6395
It will be interesting to see the proposed Design Code (1.17). Hopefully it will contain mandatory requirements to  ensure that new developments make intelligent use of desire lines that promote ease of access by sustainable means. The modern imposition of single access and egress (mainly by car) skews travel options heavily in favour of car trips that could easily be done sustainably. Caldy Valley is a good example of how it used to work.  The evidence base should contain convincing evidence that the existing levels of traffic do not already result in high levels of pollution at traffic hotspots. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6021

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Ranger

I
I&O_6410
The Borough should prepare a comprehensive  urban capacity study to accurately identify brownfield land in existing urban areas and opportunities for intensification with emphasis on areas already served with good public transport. Good development here would encourage safe walking and cycling, reduce car use and regenerate left-behind urban communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 6091

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6480
1 | IN 1 Do you agree that this is the right evidence that we need to inform the new Local Plan? Is there further evidence that you think will be required?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base I agree that the listed evidence is important, but the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan (FNHP) demonstrates that more is required. Our Housing Needs Assessment (2018) identified the demand for smaller affordable homes for young families and older residents wishing to downsize (Policies H1–H2). The FNHP also highlights the significance of heritage (Castle Park, Bradley Hillfort, the Conservation Area), biodiversity (Hob Hey Wood, Local Green Spaces), and air quality along the A56 (Policy T1). These must be fully tested in the Local Plan evidence base.   🌳 Hob Hey Wood Ancient Woodland Considerations Hob Hey Wood is ancient woodland, a designated Site of Biological Importance, and protected as Local Green Space in the FNHP. Its irreplaceable ecological value requires a dedicated Ancient Woodland & Biodiversity Study, recognising its role for nature recovery, flood resilience, and community wellbeing.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour locally (HOPE for Frodsham) and nationally is committed to protecting the Green Belt, prioritising brownfield first, and linking planning to wellbeing. The LSE analysis warns that a “grey belt” approach would undermine protections. The evidence base must therefore be sufficiently robust to prevent erosion of these principles.   🧠 Wider Context Colenutt (The Property Lobby) shows how weak evidence enables developers to evade affordable housing delivery. Bourland (Gray to Green Communities) argues that carbon budgeting must be embedded in all plans. Gallent (Whose Housing Crisis?) stresses that housing should be treated as a community asset, not just an investment vehicle.   📌 Important Considerations To be sound, the evidence base must go further and include: Ancient Woodland & Biodiversity Study (Hob Hey Wood, wildlife corridors). Heritage & Archaeology Assessment (Bradley Camp, Castle Park, medieval landscapes). Public Health Impact Assessment (air quality, mental health, wellbeing). Viability & Delivery Evidence (testing affordable housing delivery). Climate & Carbon Budget Assessment (ensuring growth is within CWAC’s carbon commitments). Soils & Agricultural Land Study (protecting best and most versatile land). This broader base of evidence will ensure growth not only addresses housing needs but also protects Frodsham’s character, heritage, and natural environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 6098

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Will Holden

I&O_6488
I believe the consultation does not currently adequately assess the ecological impact of development around the Frodsham area and that a full environmental impact assessment for any of the proposed development locations will be required.

Comment

Representation ID: 6239

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Bennett

I&O_6637
Evidence looks correct, if transport assessment includes future planning as well as current transport availability

Comment

Representation ID: 6245

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Casey

IN 1
I&O_6643
The local plan should also encompass the provision of  NHS health services - doctors, dentists and pharmacies.  This area does not seem to have been considered in many local developments leading to these services being already over-stretched.

Comment

Representation ID: 6324

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Morton

I&O_6731
I find it hard ti believe that each evidence base opened and closed within an hour but is listed as "live" the brown area survey was last done in 2019! What about a mining survey and local amenities survey

Comment

Representation ID: 6419

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Gorsuch

I&O_6833
Yes, but there is so much information not yet available, it's hard to comment No mention of Cheshire East or other neighbouring local authorities - local economies do not stop at the border. This is particularly relevant when considering employment and travel. Some suggested options would have a major impact e.g. if housing in Winsford were to be greatly expanded, many would presumably work in Crewe

Comment

Representation ID: 6420

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Sljivic

1.19
I&O_6834
Need to include suitable provision for Education in any new housing requirements. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6437

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chloe Randall

I&O_6851
  Neston and Parkgate  *There is no consideration of the conservation area, or RSPB nature reserve, which is home to endangered wildlife and is unique to Europe. .  *There is no consideration of existing brownfield sites or innovative solutions 

Comment

Representation ID: 6470

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6885
The listed evidence is necessary but incomplete. Additional evidence should include: - A robust and up-to-date Housing Needs Assessment (LHNA) before housing numbers are set. Current figures (1,914 homes/year) are arbitrary and risk being found unsound without this. - A Settlement Character & Identity Study, to identify and protect distinct gaps between villages and prevent coalescence. - A Transport and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, including realistic solutions for the Winnington bridge and congestion pinch points in Northwich, alongside HGV impact assessments from Hynet and Winnington Solar Development. - A Food Security & Agricultural Land Study, to balance housing and renewable energy against the long-term need for productive farmland.

Comment

Representation ID: 6530

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Churchill

Yes
I&O_6947

Comment

Representation ID: 6713

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanna Bell

I&O_7133
It is hard to comment as to whether the evidence is sufficient when the additional evidence you have proposed is 'in preparation'.   To build on green belt land I would think that the green belt study, flood risk assement, infrastructure and transport assements you have suggested are vital.   The additional evidence suggested would be interesting to see in detail in order to make an informed decision.

Comment

Representation ID: 6916

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Paterson

I&O_7384
Guilden Sutton Parish Council feels that the borough should prepare a  comprehensive urban capacity study  that would identify brownfield land in the urban areas and opportunities for intensification, particularly in areas with good public transport or the potential to provide good walking and cycling to reduce the need for travel, and regenerate left-behind urban communities in CWaC. Our evidence for this is:   ·        We know standard LPA brownfield registers are almost all out of date and of little use in identifying either developable or deliverable housing sites.   ·        In 2022 the CPRE  'State of brownfield report’  showed that over 1.2 million homes could be built over 23,000 sites nationally covering more than 27,000 hectares of brownfield, including a minimum of 165,919 dwellings in the north west. This evidence suggests that there is a lot of extra developable brownfield land that has not yet been identified in the CWaC area.   ·        Local communities in the Chester Green Belt Alliance have started the process of identifying additional housing land using the CPRE brownfield register toolkit. It is expected to demonstrate additional sites. We are keen to, and expect that CWaC will engage with us in this exercise.   ·        Wirral MBC has just adopted a local plan without the need to allocate Green Belt or greenfields for development, and with a high degree of political consensus.