Comment

Representation ID: 2906

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_3080
OB1 Elsewhere in the document, three options are offered, namely Option A – Retain the Green Belt Option B – Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development Option C – Sustainable transport corridors Is this question designed to confuse, changing the option references? There is significant risk that people will answer this question based on later commentary, or use these references when answering subsequent questions. With question will 'sway' opinion and findings of this consultation. That aside, whilst I support many of the objectives of the Sustainability Appraisal, I'm concerned that 'headlines' will be applied without detailed analysis and real world knowledge. The M56/A56/Manchester-Chester rail line is a clear transport corridor, however the A56 regularly moves at walking pace on Thursday/Friday, the M56 regularly reaches standstill (several times/week) and trains to Manchester at peak period are overloaded. In summary, focusing on a travel corridor for increased housing may to support sustainability targets maybe counter intuitive. As such, I would prefer work to continue against the current Local Plan, with consideration of sustainability applied (but not the default driving force).

Comment

Representation ID: 2988

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Beryl Prior

I&O_3162
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 2994

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3168
I support Option A – taking forward the current Local Plan objectives (SO1–SO16) as the most appropriate base for the new Local Plan. These objectives provide a comprehensive and balanced framework across economic, social and environmental issues, and have already been tested through examination. They include essential principles such as: SO9 – prioritising brownfield regeneration. SO10 – protecting the Green Belt and countryside. SO5 – ensuring development is matched with infrastructure. However, I also recognise the strengths of Option B (Sustainability Appraisal objectives), which sharpen the focus on environmental outcomes such as air quality, flood risk, water quality, and biodiversity. These should not replace the adopted objectives, but selected elements could be incorporated to update and strengthen Option A. Conclusion: Option A is the right foundation, but the new Local Plan should integrate the most useful environmental and health-focused objectives from Option B to create a stronger and more deliverable framework.

Comment

Representation ID: 3084

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: National Highways

I&O_3258
Overview Given the recent Call for Sites exercises, information on the distribution of developments and therefore their potential impact on local infrastructure within the borough and the SRN are currently not known. We recommend that Cheshire West and Chester Council engage proactively with National Highways as the Local Plan is developed to ensure that any adverse impact to the SRN is mitigated and that growth promoted through the Local Plan is brought forward in a sustainable manner. Policy OB1: Objectives (Option A) The presented approach to Option A reflects the continuation of existing Local Plan objectives. While these are broadly aligned with sustainable development principles, the lack of clarity on site distribution means the potential impacts on the SRN remain uncertain. We recommend continued engagement to assess infrastructure needs as the spatial strategy is refined. Policy OB1: Objectives (Option B) The presented approach to Option B is reflective of Cheshire West and Chester’s acknowledgement of the Climate Crisis, reflected in the wording of the stated objectives which go above and beyond those in the Option A objectives. Dependent on the approach decided upon, this may have lesser or greater impacts for National Highways with regard to developments or enhancements to the SRN through the borough boundary. We recommend that the Council engage with National Highways through the Local Plan process to ensure that the approach selected is in line with National Highways policy, particularly the Climate Change and the Strategic Road Network (ARP4) report, and the Environmental Sustainability Strategies.

Comment

Representation ID: 3222

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3396
Option B - the north Cheshire green belt has to go unfortnately

Comment

Representation ID: 3283

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3457
Option A with amendments to explicitly protect smaller villages like Williston and Hooton and green spaces/greenfield. Willaston and Hotton are already overstretched.

Comment

Representation ID: 3329

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Simpson

I&O_3503
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 3425

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3599
The local plan objectives should be taken forward however strong regard should be given to whether proposed development is sustainable.  Additionally the softening of the protection of the green belt should not be accepted as a given.  Once it is gone it is gone!  |Development should be focused on brownfield sites.  We should maximise the use of the land which has already been developed.

Comment

Representation ID: 3521

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3695
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 3862

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4044
Little Leigh Parish Council does not see much conflict between the Options. Our preference would be, broadly, to continue with Option A but taking account of the main sustainability objectives.  

Comment

Representation ID: 3899

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Hooke

I&O_4081
B is essential in light of climate change and population pressures and for quality of life.

Comment

Representation ID: 3904

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4086
Option B favoured

Comment

Representation ID: 4145

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4374
Option A - with the addition of an environmental objective covering wildlife and habitats

Comment

Representation ID: 4293

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: David Rudd

I&O_4522
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 4429

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4668
option A subject to the inclusion of SO5 prior to (or in tandem with) each development

Comment

Representation ID: 4464

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_4722
It is not immediately obvious what the fundamental differences are or that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4478

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Miles

I&O_4742
I would select option B - use the SA objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 4550

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: ellie miles

I&O_4833
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 4667

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_4963
Option A without amendments or removal of the rural and environmental context. Or if that can't be done Option B. However it feels like these sets of objectives are trying to do different things and I'm not sure why a combination of both would not be more appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 4694

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5003
Sustainability objectives are important in a rural environment so OPtion B would be most appropriate

Comment

Representation ID: 4747

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Holden

I&O_5073
Option B - Use the sustainability appraisal objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 4906

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: P Weston

I&O_5264
OB1 OptionA

Comment

Representation ID: 4939

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Percival

I&O_5298
Option B Sustainability Appraisal Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 4991

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5350
Option A
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 5096

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5456
Option A is my preferred approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 5294

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy OB 1
I&O_5660
c) Neither of these

Comment

Representation ID: 5302

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: DERWENT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Agent: ATP

I&O_5668
In reality, Option A proposes taking forward a suite of Local Plan objectives other than those that would not align with taking forward a Plan which could genuinely meet Plan-led requirements. Given that this is necessary in practical terms, the logic behind that is clear. Option B takes an alternative approach, and it is inevitable that there will be some momentum to take forward some of these ambitions through bespoke DM policies. However, it will be important that the imposition of these policies are properly assessed in terms of whether they might impede delivery of Plan-led requirements. This will include whole Plan viability assessment, which cannot be left to the DM stage. If this suite of policy requirements did render housing tpyologies undeliverable, then the suite of policy requirements should change accordingly.    

Comment

Representation ID: 5398

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5769
Neither of these. The current Local Plan objectives are outdated and too general, and simply carrying them forward will not deal with the real pressures facing Cheshire West today. The Sustainability Appraisal objectives are also too broad and read more like a checklist than a plan for how local communities will be supported. A new set of objectives is needed that directly reflects what residents are experiencing. These should include: Putting infrastructure first , so that housing is only approved where there are enough school places, GP capacity, and hospital provision, as well as safe and reliable transport. Protecting the quality of life of existing residents who are often left with more congestion, crowded schools and longer GP waiting times when new housing is built without proper planning. Making developer promises legally binding , with strict monitoring to ensure that commitments are delivered and that they benefit both new and existing communities. Prioritising child safety with proper walking and cycling routes to schools. Without this, more parents will resort to driving, which adds further traffic and air pollution. Giving clear and strong protection to the Green Belt . Building on it must not be the answer to meeting housing numbers. Prioritising brownfield redevelopment instead of Green Belt release. There are many underused and vacant sites in the borough that should be brought back into use before any countryside is lost. Embedding the climate emergency response , ensuring development reduces emissions, improves biodiversity, and makes best use of existing land and infrastructure. In short, neither Option A nor Option B goes far enough. What is needed is a new set of objectives that commit to protecting the Green Belt, reusing brownfield sites, and putting infrastructure and community wellbeing at the heart of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 5448

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cheshire Constabulary

I&O_5820
My preference is for option B, as I feel it links in more with community safety and crime prevention than Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 5587

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Cowell

I&O_5959
The current local plan seems to be well considered and should be taken forward.