Comment

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6110
Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 5804

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Bridge

I&O_6176
Totally agree that development shoud be on previously developed land avoiding greenfield land\ And that it should avoid locations of environmental value (when its gone its gone!) and high grade agricultural land (needed solely for food production)

Comment

Representation ID: 5919

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Cowley

SD 1
I&O_6306
I agree with the policy approach, however there needs to be a specific narrative about protecting green belt land and not just 'high grade' agricultural land.

Comment

Representation ID: 5932

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

I&O_6320
Why are new building developments taking place now with no solar panels on houses and renewable heating such as heat pumps installed when you have already declared a climate emergency?  I would suggest that all new builds have solar panel provision and are designed to maximise roofspace suitable for this even if it dosn't maximise profits! Also what about Solar panels on parking bays this has been done at Daresbury Laboratory. Imagine all the supermarket and public car parking and the electricity that could be generated.

Comment

Representation ID: 5996

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6385
Support the use of low grade unused agricultural land within reason for small dvelopment within Green Belt areas

Comment

Representation ID: 6066

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Slater

I&O_6455
Again, laudable aims but little real world experience is setting these things implemented. A concern might be that imposition of local rules might make developments expensive to deliver, which might result in developers going elsewhere for richer pickings (which some would call a good thing). 

Comment

Representation ID: 6124

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6520
4 | SD 1 Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards sustainable development, as set out in   SD 1 ‘Sustainable development’ above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base I broadly support the emphasis on climate change, renewable energy, and green infrastructure. However, the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan (Policies H1–H2, GSRL1, T1, HCH1–HCH5) shows that sustainable development in Frodsham means: Housing that meets local needs (smaller, affordable homes for families and downsizers). Permanent protection of Hob Hey Wood and Local Green Spaces as critical biodiversity and wellbeing assets. Air quality improvements in the A56 AQMA. Infrastructure-first growth – schools, GP capacity, drainage, and transport must be in place before or alongside new housing, not delivered years afterwards.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood The draft policy does not go far enough on biodiversity. Ancient woodland and biodiversity corridors must be treated as absolute constraints to development, not issues for mitigation. Hob Hey Wood, a designated Site of Biological Importance and Local Green Space, must be given permanent protection in the Local Plan’s sustainability framework.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally (2024 manifesto) commits to: A brownfield-first approach, Permanent Green Belt protection, and Non-negotiable environmental standards. Locally, the HOPE for Frodsham plan makes wellbeing and countryside protection central. The LSE warns that “grey belt” weakens protections and public trust. Therefore, SD 1 should be amended to: Embed brownfield-first development as a guiding principle. Rule out “grey belt” release as a routine tool. Remove viability loopholes – sustainability measures such as solar panels, EV charging, SuDS, and biodiversity net gain must be compulsory.   🧠 Wider Context Bourland (Gray to Green Communities): Sustainable development must be measured against carbon budgets. Colenutt (The Property Lobby): Developers exploit viability tests to weaken sustainability requirements. Gallent & Eaqub: Sustainability must mean affordable, healthy homes for local people, not speculative estates driven by developer interests.   📌 Important Considerations Strengths in SD1 Strong on climate change and low-carbon design. Includes renewable energy, EV charging, SuDS, and water efficiency. Recognises green/blue infrastructure, biodiversity, and air quality. Supports brownfield-first development and high-grade agricultural land protection. Amendments needed Infrastructure-first delivery – no development without upfront GP, school, and transport provision. Transport realism – investment in rail and bus services must come before housing growth in towns like Frodsham. Ancient woodland and Green Belt – confirm these will not be released except in genuinely exceptional cases. Air quality – commit to improving existing AQMA areas (A56 Frodsham), not simply preventing further deterioration. Mandatory standards – ensure requirements on solar, EV, SuDS, and biodiversity are enforceable with no viability opt-out.

Comment

Representation ID: 6194

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Shabina Briggs

I&O_6590
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable.   FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion.   However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley.   Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 6253

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Casey

SD 1
I&O_6655
Development of the Green Belt around Chester should not be permitted as this can never been recovered once its been lost.

Comment

Representation ID: 6272

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Basden

I&O_6679
Regarding climate change, both mitigating and adapting are necessary. Good that the suggested policy includes both.

Comment

Representation ID: 6485

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6900
Support the climate change focus, but oppose ground-mounted solar farms on farmland. Rooftop solar should be prioritised. Infrastructure delivery must be frontloaded with housing milestones legally tied to schools/roads/GP provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 6556

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Will Holden

I&O_6973
yes - the focus should be on developing brownfield land and no development on agricultural land (ALC 1 - 3)

Comment

Representation ID: 6667

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brookhouse Group Ltd

Agent: WSP

SD 1
I&O_7087
The objectives set are too detailed, duplicate guidance in NPPF and are thus unnecessary.  For example point 2 states “all new buildings should include solar panels unless it can be shown that this is impractical or unviable”.  Technology is changing fast and it is too prescriptive when other alternatives my offer a better option.  The list of items cannot be a ‘must’ for new development as not all sites can deliver green and blue infrastructure (e.g city centre sites).

Comment

Representation ID: 6742

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanna Bell

I&O_7168
Sustainablity is obviously important and the protection of green belt should be seen as a key component of this.  

Comment

Representation ID: 6835

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Lea-Swain

I&O_7271
I agree in principle to the suggested policy towards sustainbale development. However certain policies contradict the approach to land identification and use Ie Avoid development in locations of high environmental value and on high-grade agricultural land ; ie Green Belt Support development that achieves regeneration of the most deprived areas of the borough ; Sustainable Transport Corridor suggestions are not neccessarily in need of regeneration due to deprivation.

Comment

Representation ID: 6939

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7407
Agreed. ADD Encourage more development within existing settlements and around rail, and bus station and key transit corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 6964

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Kerrigan

I&O_7432
Agree

Comment

Representation ID: 7068

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7538
Generally I agree. But Cheshire West's performance has been, frankly, woeful. There are no electric buses, there are very few EV charging points compared to similar boroughs, and there is no recognition that autonomous taxis and other vehciles will be available early in the new plan's life.

Comment

Representation ID: 7112

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael O'Sullivan

I&O_7584
Ground mounted solar - Where the land is inadequate for crops or is otherwise considered unusable eg Neston Old Landfill Site at Clayhill, please encourage it. However, Factories without solar should be targetted before permitting solar on food production fields. Also, where housing is accepted, is it possible to condition an increase the solar on roofs, modern housing seems to just have a minimum number of panels to get the development through net gain. Retrospective solar sees substantially more panels, new builds aim low, aim higher. No Gas provision either please, heatpumps, all electric, solar housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 7170

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nik Darwin

I&O_7645
yes, agree with this approach, which strongly points to locating development in locations where there is access to sustainable modes of transport and where a range of services and facilities are easily accessible.

Comment

Representation ID: 7262

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7742
There are several useful elements to this which are positive. However the sustainability of the project needs to be shown and if not sufficient , to be improved.

Comment

Representation ID: 7265

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7745
Yes I agree.

Comment

Representation ID: 7331

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Enterprise Cheshire and Warrington

I&O_7811
This would lead to an increase in the climate readiness for new developments. Additional considerations should ideally include both: Minimisation of embodied carbon within new construction (particularly for strategic developments) utilising sustainable/recycled building materials as a preference and working with the local supply chain to deliver where this is practical. Assessment and mitigation of risks to thermal comfort from overheating for new build properties due to global heating. Where a DHN is found to non-viable, an alternative low carbon heat source should be installed to all new build properties.

Comment

Representation ID: 7446

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7926
Do not destroy existing habitats so you don't need ot create fake new ones 

Comment

Representation ID: 7489

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Strachan

I&O_7969
"All new buildings should include solar panels unless it can be shown that this is impractical or not viable ." Massive loophole for developers built into policy here. Might as well just say you should think about it but we will understand if it eats too much into your profit margin. Tax the landowners more! Consider differentiation between commercial and residential at least - there are acres of industrial roof space across CWAC but we continue to give up food producing land for solar developments. It is always practical and viable - the question is who pays for what is a sensible investment that will make a difference to overarching objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 7817

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8305
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 8021

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8510
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 8218

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8707
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 8400

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8891
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts

Comment

Representation ID: 8617

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9108
No – it appears to simply focus in on climate change and does not mention the need to actually deliver sustainable development – supporting and enhancing existing communities, services, facilities and infrastructure As currently framed it does not recognise that the policy could have unintended consequences for heritage assets and cost (viability) impacts on all schemes were it to go above and beyond meeting building regulation standards; plus seeking combined heat and power on strategic sites may be an objective, but it introduces unknown impacts