Comment

Representation ID: 5134

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5498
15 years seems reasonable at this stage. Businesses should be able to have 15-25 year development plans for building on site, such as Shell, Vauxhall, University of Liverpool Leahurst, University of Chester. Sites can get hemmed in by legacy buildings that take time to replace and for sites to adapt to changing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 5334

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5703
I don’t think a 15-year plan period is long enough. Development on this scale affects communities for decades, and a short timeframe risks focusing too much on hitting housing numbers while ignoring the real pressures on local services. Before more housing or business use is planned, the priority should be to make sure critical services are in place. In Chester that means proper investment in schools, GP surgeries, roads, and public transport – all of which are already struggling. A new hospital for Chester should also be part of this thinking, as the existing facilities are already stretched. If the Local Plan only looks 15 years ahead, there’s a danger the infrastructure side will fall behind, leaving people to deal with overcrowded schools, long waits for GP appointments, worse congestion, and an overstretched health system. Extending the plan period to at least 20 or even 30 years would give a more realistic picture of how development and services can be balanced. And importantly, destroying our Green Belt to make up housing numbers is not the right answer – the focus should be on making sure existing communities are properly supported before pushing into protected land. In short, the Local Plan should start with schools, healthcare, roads and other essential services, not with housing targets, and it should look further ahead to make sure those needs can realistically be met.

Comment

Representation ID: 5619

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_5991
Yes, a 15 year period is fine. However,  where possible a longer term vision and aspirations could help people understand the reasons why polices are needed and what they are seeking to achieve.

Comment

Representation ID: 5944

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6333
This should have started several years ago but I realise with the impending change of government it wasn't deemed stable enough to move in any one direction

Comment

Representation ID: 6095

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6485
1 | IN 3 Do you have any comments or views on the proposed plan period for the new Local Plan?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base The FNHP evidence shows Frodsham can only deliver modest growth, mainly through brownfield and windfall sites (~97 homes identified in the SEA). A 15-year plan horizon risks encouraging over-allocation of land that ignores these clear local constraints. 🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Hob Hey Wood is ancient, irreplaceable habitat. A shorter plan horizon increases the risk of incremental encroachment and cumulative harm to this designated Site of Biological Importance. Its long-term protection must be hardwired into the Local Plan. 🌹 Labour Perspective Labour policy is that housing targets must be realistic, evidence-based, and infrastructure-led. The LSE analysis warns against inflated targets used to justify Green Belt release. A balanced plan period should therefore resist speculative pressures and protect community interests. 🧠 Wider Context Bourland (Gray to Green Communities) highlights that local plans must align with climate pathways to 2050 – requiring a horizon that looks well beyond 15 years. Gallent (Whose Housing Crisis?) stresses that planning must consider long-term equity between current and future residents, which shorter horizons often overlook.   📌 Important Considerations A 30-year vision would better reflect infrastructure delivery timescales, flood resilience measures, and the borough’s climate neutrality targets to 2050. If CWAC opts for a 15-year plan period (the legal minimum), then: Mandatory reviews every 5 years must be built in to keep evidence current and resist speculative applications. Recognition is needed that major sites (e.g. FRO01 and FRO02) would take far longer than 15 years to complete, with impacts on traffic, flood risk, and ecology lasting for decades.   The plan period should provide certainty for residents while reflecting realistic delivery and long-term environmental responsibilities. A 30-year vision is most appropriate, but if limited to 15 years, it must include robust 5-year reviews to protect communities like Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 6243

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Bennett

I&O_6641
Planning for the minimum 15 year period sounds extremely difficult given the amount of change we will see in this time, so would not want to extend this further unless absolutely required.

Comment

Representation ID: 6334

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Morton

I&O_6741
If plan A is implemented in Winsford iI would class this as a larger development and therefore would suggest the 30 year plan nonetheless suggested 15 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 6472

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6887
A 15-year plan period is acceptable provided it is realistic and deliverable. However: - For large-scale development, the plan must commit to longer-term infrastructure solutions (e.g. replacement for Winnington Bridge). - The plan period must be phased with clear delivery milestones, to avoid frontloading housing without matching infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 6918

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrigan

I&O_7386
Disappointed that we are doing this before the end of the prevous plan which took many years to develop

Comment

Representation ID: 6921

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Paterson

CH 02
I&O_7389
I agree that 15 years is a reasonable period. Any more would increase pressure to allocate greenfield or Green Belt sites. These would inevitably be developed first, and use of brownfield land and urban regeneration would stall. It is almost impossible to see what economic or social factors will apply more than ten years ahead, so while significant strategic issues can be guessed at, it is not sensible to make tactical allocation decisions more than 15 years ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 6926

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7394
We believe that the plan should cover the period to 2040 as a minimum.

Comment

Representation ID: 7148

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nik Darwin

I&O_7620
the plan has to cover a period of 15 years from adoption and as this is unlikely to be until 2027 at the earliest the plan period will in effect need to be 17 or 18 years

Comment

Representation ID: 7207

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7685
I agree with the 15 years and 30 years proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 7227

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7707
Much can change in 15 years. The plan needs to have the ability to adapt and be amended . It needs to evolve.

Comment

Representation ID: 7266

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lynn Stocks

I&O_7746
The current proposal of 15 years is too long as there has not been a long enough consultation period to give residents time to engage and by doing the consultation over the summer I would assume the engagement has been much lower than it otherwise might have been.

Comment

Representation ID: 7267

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Mark Stocks

I&O_7747
I BELIEVE THE CURRENT PLAN PROPOSAL IS LONG AS WE HAVE HAD INSUFFICENT TIME TO PROPERLY REVIEW  REQUIREMENTS AND NEEDS WITHIN THE BOROUGH

Comment

Representation ID: 7423

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7903
Traffic is Already Broken The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. Add hundreds of extra vehicles from FR001 and FR002 and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk. GP Practices and Schools Are Full There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes mean more pressure, more waiting, more stretched services. No part of this development includes concrete plans or funding for new public services. That means the burden falls on existing ones, which are already struggling. Source: Cheshire West Monitoring Reports – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building-control/local-plan/authority-monitoring-report Air Quality and Light Pollution Will Get Worse Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust, and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. Source: Cheshire West AQMA Action Plan – https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/pests-pollution-food-safety/pollution-and-air-quality/air-quality-review-and-assessment/action-plans/action-plan-frodsham-0118.pdf Source: Bat Conservation Trust Guidance NoteGN08/23Bats and Artificial Lighting At Night. Source: Impact of light pollution on moth morphology–A 137-year study in Germany https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.05.004 ). Antisocial Behaviour and Isolation Will Rise New estates without integrated planning lead to social fragmentation. These areas become disconnected, under-policed, and under-supported. This isn’t speculation. It’s known from other developments nationally. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that growth supports community cohesion. This proposal does not. It isolates new homes on the edge of town and dumps responsibility for cohesion onto already stretched services. Source: NPPF (2023) – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 House Prices Will Drop People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. Strip those away, and the value drops. This development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth. Homeowners who’ve invested in the area will be hit with lower resale values and a loss of the rural edge they were sold on. Developers walk away with profit. Residents are left picking up the cost.

Comment

Representation ID: 7666

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Jones Homes (North West) Limited

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_8153
On the basis of the Council’s LDS, assuming adoption in Autumn 2027, the minimum plan period will be the 31st March 2043 so that there is a full 15-year period at adoption. However, this assumes that there are no delays between now and then, which in our view is unrealistic. It is also important to note that Local Plan examinations have historically taken multiple years. Specific examples include the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy which took over 3 years and the Halton Delivery and Allocations Plan which took 2 years. More recently, Planning Inspectors have paused public hearings being held as part of the examination into the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037. This demonstrates the issues and delays can take place during the examination process. This issue has also been recently by the Inspectors for the Wiltshire Local Plan and in their letter dated 27th February 2025 state: “The revised spatial strategy topic paper (SD/16) shows the Plan period of 2020-2038 commencing in advance of the date of the most up-to-date calculation of Local Housing Need. In that regard, the plan period would look forward around 13 years from the current date which the Council seeks to justify as being 15 years from the date of the assessments of housing and employment needs. However, paragraph 22 of the Framework (September 2023) expects strategic policies to look ahead over a minimum of 15 years following adoption of the Plan. As a result, the submitted Plan would not appear to look sufficiently far ahead to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities. We identify this matter to you at this early stage as it is clearly a matter of concern and one which will have implications for the rest of the examination, including our consideration of whether the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy with respect to the overall amount of housing and employment land to be identified.” We consider that an element of flexibility is built in at the outset and the plan period should be to 2045.

Comment

Representation ID: 7691

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_8178
On the basis of the Council’s LDS, assuming adoption in Autumn 2027, the minimum plan period will be the 31st March 2043 so that there is a full 15-year period at adoption. However, this assumes that there are no delays between now and then, which in our view is unrealistic. It is also important to note that Local Plan examinations have historically taken multiple years. Specific examples include the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy which took over 3 years and the Halton Delivery and Allocations Plan which took 2 years. More recently, Planning Inspectors have paused public hearings being held as part of the examination into the Charnwood Local Plan 2021-2037. This demonstrates the issues and delays can take place during the examination process. This issue has also been recently by the Inspectors for the Wiltshire Local Plan and in their letter dated 27th February 2025 state: “The revised spatial strategy topic paper (SD/16) shows the Plan period of 2020-2038 commencing in advance of the date of the most up-to-date calculation of Local Housing Need. In that regard, the plan period would look forward around 13 years from the current date which the Council seeks to justify as being 15 years from the date of the assessments of housing and employment needs. However, paragraph 22 of the Framework (September 2023) expects strategic policies to look ahead over a minimum of 15 years following adoption of the Plan. As a result, the submitted Plan would not appear to look sufficiently far ahead to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities. We identify this matter to you at this early stage as it is clearly a matter of concern and one which will have implications for the rest of the examination, including our consideration of whether the Plan is positively prepared and consistent with national policy with respect to the overall amount of housing and employment land to be identified.” We consider that an element of flexibility is built in at the outset and the plan period should be to 2045.

Comment

Representation ID: 7810

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8298
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.

Comment

Representation ID: 7867

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Graham and Caroline Russell

IN 3
I&O_8356
A 15-year plan period is appropriate. Extending further would unnecessarily increase pressure to allocate Green Belt or greenfield land, which would likely be developed first, stalling brownfield regeneration. Looking beyond 15 years is highly speculative: while broad strategic issues can be foreseen, making allocation decisions decades ahead is unreliable and unsound.

Comment

Representation ID: 8013

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8502
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.

Comment

Representation ID: 8208

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8697
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.

Comment

Representation ID: 8394

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8885
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.

Comment

Representation ID: 8468

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Green Belt Alliance

I&O_8959
We agree that 15 years is a reasonable period. Any more would increase pressure to allocate greenfield or Green Belt sites. These would inevitably be developed first, and use of brownfield land and urban regeneration would stall. It is almost impossible to see what economic or social factors will apply more than ten years ahead, so while significant strategic issues can be guessed at, it is not sensible to make tactical allocation decisions more than 15 years ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 8571

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Great Boughton Parish Council

IN3
I&O_9062
Great Boughton Parish Council agree that 15 years is a reasonable period. Any more would increase pressure to allocate greenfield or Green Belt sites. These would inevitably be developed first, and use of brownfield land and urban regeneration would stall. It is almost impossible to see what economic or social factors will apply more than ten years ahead, so while significant strategic issues can be guessed at, it is not sensible to make tactical allocation decisions more than 15 years ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 8609

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (North West) Ltd and Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9100
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.

Comment

Representation ID: 8668

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Carol and Daniel Morgan

IN3
I&O_9159
Question IN 3 – Do you have any comments or views on the proposed plan period? Yes. A 15-year plan period is appropriate . Planning beyond this timeframe introduces unnecessary uncertainty, particularly around housing and economic forecasts. A longer horizon would likely increase pressure to release Green Belt or greenfield land prematurely, while speculative allocations decades in advance would not be soundly based. Fifteen years strikes the right balance between long-term vision and realistic delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 8764

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Gandy

IN3
I&O_9257
Question IN3: Plan Period I believe that the new Local Plan should cover a period of 20 years.

Comment

Representation ID: 8788

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9281
A 20-year plan period may be more effective in response to the advice provided in NPPF22, particularly given the need to review Green Belt boundaries.