Comment

Representation ID: 220

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: donna Jackson

I&O_250
In the time frames positioned much of the areas ear marked for development may well be affected by rising water levels , which will be accelerated by building over large parts of Helsby , particularly in sites prone to flooding noe

Comment

Representation ID: 292

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: Tim Ashcroft

I&O_322
The HIA is non-binding and  fairly weak framework. It provides a list of question and somewhat subjectively rates them as important to health or not. There are no metrics and no commitments. This is too easy to fudge and needs strengthening given the importance of the impact of climate change and the importance of th eimpact of the local 'envirnoment' on health. This really doesn't pass any basic test of rigourous!

Comment

Representation ID: 957

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1061
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1358
we agree with it

Comment

Representation ID: 1835

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Diane Cartwright

I&O_1945
Not taking into account the green land in darnhall. Too much traffic, too much pollution, town not big enough to sustain more houses. Why haven't they spread out to other areas of Cheshire 

Comment

Representation ID: 2086

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2206
SA/SEA should also include an environmental assessment on the impact on peoples’ health and well-being.  In addition the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan Issues and Options  Habitats Regulation Assessment Initial Screening document does not address areas within Cheshire West and Chester.  It looks at areas around the County and there is no mention of areas of environmental importance within the County.  Therefore this document is not relevant to be considered in the Sustainability Appraisal of the Local Plan.  A further SA/SEA assessment needs to be made of Cheshire West and Chester and NOT the surrounding areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 2303

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2432
Willaston and Hooton cannot sustain further housing development due to the significant impact on environment, economy and society as well as crisis climate change. Adding houses in villages that don’t have good public transport links in Willaston, adds to the majority of residents who commute to work, more cars, traffic noise and congestion and emissions. Willaston has been flagged for congestion and gridlock problems with access to school/ football games, and village centre activities, frequently having the high street blocked and poor access for emergency and front line service access. The high street often is single lane due to parked vehicles and regularly becomes gridlocked during peak hours. It cannot sustain more houses and cars in Willaston or in Hooton. More housing and residents adds strain to the limited healthcare services that are already stretched which will reduce access to appointments and increase waitlists. Willaston and Hooton do not have the infrastructure to manage increased housing, that other areas in cheshire/cheshire west do. Residential villages like willaston and neston with limited employment should be protected from housing growth. Ellesmere port, Northwich, chester, winsford, tarpoley,farndon, cuddington and sandiway, are all better equipped with infrastrure, public transport links and services like schools and healthcare to handle growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 2418

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2547
I agree that this is a necessary requirement but it must be appreciated that situations may change and changes will need to be factored in and addressed. To proceed blindly with the first iteration of this plan will not serve this requirment well or at all.

Comment

Representation ID: 2558

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2711
Overall, the SA/SEA has identified the key issues and risks associated with water management.  The more important element will be the measures proposed in the Local Plan to address the identified issues so that development proceeds in tandem with sustainable water management and pollution prevention principles.  We would be happy to discuss these issues further with the council.

Comment

Representation ID: 2670

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Anne Salmon

I&O_2823
This looks comprehensive but I suppose until the questions are tested against a plan, we don't know how many of these aspirations will end up disregarded or overuled by CWAC

Comment

Representation ID: 2916

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3090
Yes. I have a number of concerns about the way the Sustainability Appraisal has been applied: Green Belt treatment – The SA does not fully reflect the December 2024 NPPF update and its “golden rules” for Green Belt release. It treats Options B and C (which both involve large Green Belt releases) as if they are broadly comparable with Option A, when in fact national policy creates a presumption against Green Belt loss except in the very specific circumstances set out in para 156 of the NPPF. The SA should give greater weight to protecting openness, preventing coalescence, and preserving historic setting. “Grey Belt” issue – The appraisal makes no attempt to test whether any of the land considered for release is genuinely “grey belt” (land of least harm and limited environmental value). Sites like NOR11 are open farmland that perform clear Green Belt purposes. Treating such land as interchangeable with lower-value sites is a serious flaw. Biodiversity and HRA integration – The SA records many effects on biodiversity and water as “uncertain.” However, the June 2025 HRA Screening has already identified that Weaverham/Northwich (including NOR11) and Acton Bridge are screened in for Likely Significant Effects (LSEs) on European sites. The SA should have reflected these as significant negative effects , not left them neutral/uncertain. Agricultural land and resources – The SA confirms that all three options would result in major loss of best and most versatile farmland . This must be treated as a strong negative. For Weaverham/NOR11, which is productive farmland, the harm is particularly high. Transport sustainability – The SA scores Options B and C more positively on sustainable transport because of their link to rail corridors. However, for Weaverham, the nearest station ( Acton Bridge ) is not genuinely accessible or sustainable: It is unmanned , with no staff support. It lacks step-free/disabled access to all platforms. It provides very limited parking , leading to congestion and displacement into neighbouring residential streets. It sits on rural lanes with no safe continuous footway or cycle link from Weaverham/NOR11. It has a low service frequency and poor bus–rail integration. Additional traffic would exacerbate local congestion on the A49 corridor . These issues mean it cannot realistically support car-free travel from NOR11. Scoring NOR11 as part of a “sustainable transport corridor” is misleading. It does not differentiate between genuinely accessible stations (like Northwich or Hartford) and poorly served/unviable ones (like Acton Bridge near Weaverham/NOR11) . This inflates the transport sustainability score for Weaverham in the SA, despite real-world conditions showing the opposite. Uncertainty masking risk – By classifying many effects as “uncertain,” the SA underplays the risks. Under the precautionary principle , uncertainty should be treated as an adverse effect until evidence proves otherwise. Conclusion: The SA in its current form understates the environmental harm of Options B and C, overstates transport sustainability for Weaverham/NOR11, and does not integrate the findings of the HRA. Unless corrected, the appraisal risks leading the plan towards unsound site choices such as Weaverham / NOR11.   Supplementary Comment on Transport Scoring (IN 4) The SA scores Option C (rail corridor growth) more positively on transport sustainability, and this has been applied to areas including Weaverham  on the basis of proximity to Acton Bridge station . However, this scoring is misleading for the following reasons: Station quality – Acton Bridge is unmanned , lacks staff support, and provides no step-free or disabled access to platforms. Parking pressure – The car park is extremely small, with overspill parking already causing displacement into surrounding lanes. Increased demand from new housing at Weaverham would intensify this problem. Safety and accessibility – There are no continuous pavements or safe cycle routes linking Weaverham/NOR11 to the station. The approach roads are rural lanes, unlit, and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. Service frequency – The timetable is infrequent compared to Northwich or Hartford stations, with poor connections and very limited peak-hour capacity. Traffic impacts – Realistically, most residents would drive to the station, adding to local congestion and worsening local air quality. The station does not service the needs of the current population. Increasing capacity will only exacerbate this. For these reasons, it is unsound to score Weaverham as benefiting from a “sustainable transport corridor.” The SA’s transport appraisal for Option C overstates the sustainability of Weaverham / NOR11 and risks giving false weight to an unsuitable allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 2925

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: David Macfadyen

I&O_3099
I think the local plan should reference the UK land use framework (to be published soon) and the ECW SIEP.  these things should be joined up.  they relate to where houses should be built

Comment

Representation ID: 3217

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3391
Point 8 about proving a supply of minerals has no importance/relevance. It is hard to see how waste generation (point 10) can be affected. The best way of not generating more waste is not to build any more houses.

Comment

Representation ID: 3277

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3451
Willaston and Hooton cannot sustain further housing development due to the significant impact on environment, economy and society as well as crisis climate change. Adding houses in villages that don’t have good public transport links in Willaston, adds to the majority of residents who commute to work, more cars, traffic noise and congestion and emissions. Willaston has been flagged for congestion and gridlock problems with access to school/ football games, and village centre activities, frequently having the high street blocked and poor access for emergency and front line service access. The high street often is single lane due to parked vehicles and regularly becomes gridlocked during peak hours. It cannot sustain more houses and cars in Willaston or in Hooton. More housing and residents adds strain to the limited healthcare services that are already stretched which will reduce access to appointments and increase waitlists. Willaston and Hooton do not have the infrastructure to manage increased housing, that other areas in cheshire/cheshire west do. Residential villages like willaston and Hooton with limited employment should be protected from housing growth. Ellesmere port, Northwich, chester, winsford, tarpoley,farndon, cuddington and sandiway, and Neston are all better equipped with infrastrure, public transport links and services like schools and healthcare to handle growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 3413

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3587
Any such assessmant should be thorough and rubost

Comment

Representation ID: 3507

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3681
No Comment

Comment

Representation ID: 3779

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_3961
Little Leigh Parish Council supports the principle here but we have no comments this initial SA/SEA.

Comment

Representation ID: 3788

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Kohut

I&O_3970
The environmental objectives of the new plan should be to retain the villages environment as it is now as a minimum. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3855

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Proctor

I&O_4037
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 3891

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4073
Landscape value has been inlcuded but should not be underestimated - adds much to wellbeing and value of open spaces, as well as underlying biodiversity and geodiversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 3893

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4075
Not enough recognition and use of the voluntary sector to inform and calibrate the measures of susutainbility.

Comment

Representation ID: 4286

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: David Rudd

I&O_4515
No comment 

Comment

Representation ID: 4416

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4650
Its not broad enough It must incorporate water, electric, gas sewerage etc..

Comment

Representation ID: 4471

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Miles

I&O_4733
Based on the SA/SEA it would seem that option A is the least desirable, scoring more poorly in relation to carbon emissions and infrastructure. Given CWaC has declared climate emergency, ensuring development occurs in a way which minimises climate impacts should be a priority. While option A is acknolwedged to provide more risk to historic environment it seems more feasible to mitigate this at a local level than it is to mitigate the impacts of focusing development in more rural areas with limited services and public trasnport links, which will inevitably lead to increased carbon emissions to access these services.

Comment

Representation ID: 4804

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Cowell

I&O_5154
There appears to be very little opr no assessment.  However, given the infrequent and unreliable nature of the rail service thtough Frodsham, the development will inevitably result in increased usae of motor vehicles. The existing A56 throughg the town is overloaded at the best of times, and when the M56 sufferes problems, either due to heavy holiday traffic or the frequent incidents that occur, espoecially in autumn/winter when the low sun causes visibility issues in the motorway.   This is far from sustainiable, and will badly impact on the quality of life and air quality in the town. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5141

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5505
Sustainaiblity seems to encompass different things for different people and some are contradictory. I would suggest adding food miles and the ability to eat food that has been produced and processed locally, purchase food within walking distance of homes and consider the size of pockets of land needed for them to be retained as viable agricultural units. Some areas of improved habitate need to be develoled away from public access. Humans and their pets are part of the problem for some habitates and some countryside needs to not become degraded with plastics, zipwires, signs and "landscpaing".

Comment

Representation ID: 5162

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael O'Sullivan

I&O_5526
Neston, Willaston, Hooton suffers from an inadequate road which is a major route between each of these and through to the main vehicle access points to the A41 and M53 for north Wirral and the rest of the nation. The A540 access is primarily to Wales and Chester. The point is that, especially Willaston which has an intensively used section of road by both heavy goods and cars whilst having constraints due to road curvature at the Nags Head. Schooltimes, Football matches, events often lead to risky driving, parking and delay such that we need environmental considerations to include the effect of additional traffic due to the scale of the Hooton/Neston developments not forgetting the incremental developments at Willaston itself. Enhance consideration of traffic impact on villages such as Willaston, need to be given when these super estates are considered. In respect of developing around stations/ bus routes etc, this is a laudible approach, however, the green belt and mature tree areas should not be treated as opportunities for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 5287

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Sustainability Appraisal - Table 2.1 SA Framework - Sustainability Objectives No.3 & No.8
I&O_5653
The inclusion in Sustainability Objective No.3 (provide high quality, well designed housing to meet identified needs) (Table 2.1 ‘SA Framework’ in the Local Plan 2025 Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal) of the importance of meeting the need for housing, is supported and the Objective should be retained as set out, because everyone has the right to be housed.   The inclusion in Sustainability Objective No.8 (provide a steady and adequate supply of minerals) (Table 2.1 ‘SA Framework’ in the Local Plan 2025 Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal) of the importance of a steady and adequate supply of minerals, is supported and the Objective should be retained as set out, because it is essential to support the level of development required to meet the area’s need for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 5333

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_5702
IN4 There is inference across the consulation material that links different policies to different actions and different plan options. Unless hidden within a reference document from another referenced document, there is nothing that categorically states which policies are covered (in part or in totality) in which plan option and/or initiative. On that basis, it concerns me that existing transport corridos are appear to be linked to the positive outcomes sought be the sustainability assessments. There is little, if any, acceptance that existing transport corridors need spare capacity to be a viable contributor to sustainability objectives; indeed where the transport corridors are already at capacity, the focus on those corridors may achieve the direct opposite of the policy's target objectives. Many roads in the borough are frequently beyond capacity with ability to upgrade many is restricted. Rail services are similarly are at capacity during peak periods, and parking facilities at many stations are constrained. These restrictions need to be understood and addressed before committing to "sustainable" options linked to existing infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 5335

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5704
Yes, I don’t feel the initial Sustainability Appraisal and SEA go far enough. On paper, they look at environmental, economic and social objectives, but in reality the balance doesn’t seem right. For example, the environmental side must include protecting the Green Belt around Chester. Once the Green Belt is lost, it’s gone forever, and replacing it with more housing estates isn’t sustainable. True sustainability means protecting the natural environment while making better use of land that has already been developed. On the social side, the assessment needs to take a harder look at how communities actually function. Building thousands of new homes without first tackling overstretched GP services, overcrowded schools, congested roads and limited hospital capacity is not sustainable , it simply moves today’s problems into the future. A new hospital in Chester should be considered as part of this picture, not left as an afterthought. Economic growth also needs to be looked at realistically. New businesses will only thrive if the communities they serve have the right infrastructure and services in place. Otherwise, we risk creating housing and business growth on paper while quality of life for local residents falls sharply. In short, the SA/SEA should be strengthened so it gives equal weight to protecting the Green Belt and making sure schools, healthcare, transport and other essential services are in place before more large-scale development is planned.