Comment

Representation ID: 5632

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6004
The existing objectives should be the startiing point but must reflect the changing circumstances between 2015 and  2025 and the prospect of further chang needing to be managed over the next twenty years.

Comment

Representation ID: 5647

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Speirs

I&O_6019
B

Comment

Representation ID: 5682

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6054
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 5733

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6105
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 5853

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Gregory

Question OB 1
I&O_6225
The most appropriate option is Option A - take forward current Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 5891

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

I&O_6277
I would say neither so c. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5986

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6375
C

Comment

Representation ID: 6106

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6499
3 | OB 1 Please select the option which is the most appropriate approach for the new Local Plan: Option A – Take forward current Local Plan objectives Option B – Use the Sustainability Appraisal objectives Neither of these   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base The FNHP shows that objectives must be practical, measurable, and rooted in community priorities. Option A (current objectives) is too dated – it was written before the Climate Emergency, the jump in housing numbers, and the adoption of the FNHP. Option B (Sustainability Appraisal objectives) is better aligned with today’s challenges — climate change, biodiversity net gain, and wellbeing — but risks being too broad and generic.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Objectives must explicitly include the permanent protection of irreplaceable habitats like Hob Hey Wood. Without clear wording, ancient woodland is left vulnerable to speculative development.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally and locally (HOPE for Frodsham) is clear: objectives must prioritise a brownfield-first approach, protect the Green Belt, deliver genuinely affordable housing, and embed wellbeing in planning. The LSE warns that vague objectives risk creating loopholes for “grey belt” erosion.   🧠 Wider Context Colenutt: weak objectives are exploited by developers to water down affordable housing. Bourland: objectives must integrate carbon budgets to stay credible. Gallent: housing should be treated as community assets, not speculative investments.   📌 Important Consideration s The best approach is neither A nor B alone, but a hybrid: Retain the clarity and community focus of Option A. Update with the sustainability, biodiversity, housing fairness, and climate action principles from Option B.   This keeps objectives simple and measurable, while making them fit for the realities of today’s housing crisis, the climate emergency, and the protection of irreplaceable local assets like Hob Hey Wood.

Comment

Representation ID: 6276

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Bennett

I&O_6683
Both sound reasonable and in the main aren't contradictory, but Option B perhaps has a more modern outlook and seems to gel more with overall national requirements. Overall I would like to see the goals of option B served as far as possible by the current plan in option A, before making necessary amendments to fulfill the slightly altered new requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 6353

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Morton

I&O_6762
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 6408

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stuart Lea-Swain

I&O_6822
Option A - Take forward current Local Plan objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 6424

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Gorsuch

I&O_6838
Option A Preserve green belt Prioritisation of true brownfield sites over greenfield sites, but do not build on sites which should never have been used for industry in the first place (so many of them)

Comment

Representation ID: 6425

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Sljivic

OB 1
I&O_6839
Suggest Option 2 is most appropriate 

Comment

Representation ID: 6479

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6894
Support Option A – current Local Plan objectives, but with stronger focus on infrastructure and settlement identity.

Comment

Representation ID: 6659

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

OB 1
I&O_7079
We consider that neither option is right and that a new local plan should set its objectives afresh having undertaken the evidence base research to understand what the key priorities for the borough are, and areas to address in terms of housing, employment and infrastructure.  It must also align with NPPF.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6809

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Lea-Swain

I&O_7240
Neither of these. The Green Belt should not be compromised. As stated Cheshire West and Chester has significant areas of Best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1 – Grade 3a).  This land is important for food production and should be maintained.

Comment

Representation ID: 6901

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Grime

Question OB 1
I&O_7368
Option B is the more appropriate approach howevere it should include the need to maintain the North Cheshire Green Belt. It is acknowledged that this may in part compromise some of the objectives but the Green Belt performs a key strategic function that should not be overlooked.

Comment

Representation ID: 6932

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7400
Option A is preferred approach * *with some likely changes and amendments to reflect changes in legislation

Comment

Representation ID: 7062

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7532
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 7103

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael O'Sullivan

I&O_7575
C-Neither: It's BOTH. The current local plan is a baseline, however, even if Government targets demand such building as to be potentially unrealistic, Sustainability must loom large in the ongoing plan. The focus on Train stations and bus routes is fascile in North Wirral, apart from Merseyrail and A41 region, services otherwise are slim. More sense is to develop around existing town centre hubs - 15 minute communities and all that. Without building on the greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7106

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: CDAF

I&O_7578
C - The objectives are too ambitious and broad ranging. They get diluted and become consequences of action. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7167

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nik Darwin

I&O_7642
For both options the issue is not what the assessment is made against but how this is effectively done. The way assessments are weighted, for example, can ensure sites are acceptable, even though they may not initially appear to be against the criteria. So whilst I favour B how this in effect drives the approach taken is difficult to understand as with both optoins there will be the difficulty of understanding which issues take prioirty and how assessment is scored and weighted.

Comment

Representation ID: 7210

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7688
Option A - Use current Local Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 7242

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7722
Neither is suitable, as they both hint at using green belt for development, which should be resisted all all costs

Comment

Representation ID: 7306

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lynn Stocks

I&O_7786
Option A - take forward current Local Plan objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 7309

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Mark Stocks

I&O_7789
I SUPPORT OPTION A. BUT I BELIEVE ARE HOUSING SUPPLY NUMBER SHOULD  BE REDUCED TO 1100

Comment

Representation ID: 7438

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7918
Neither

Comment

Representation ID: 7484

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Strachan

I&O_7964
These options are far too complex for a lay person to give a meaningful either or response and credibly understand the overall future imact of that choice or understand the relative benefits of one or the other . In many ways this consutation is so complex and difficult to assimilate it is hard to understand how meaningful it is going to be. Is this the authority really engaging and listening to people in a meaningful way?

Comment

Representation ID: 7485

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Nuala Floyd

I&O_7965
There is not enough basis and fact to comment on the approach to take the options are to generalised.

Comment

Representation ID: 7529

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Traynor

I&O_8009
C. Neither in their current form