Comment

Representation ID: 9

Received: 05/07/2025

Respondent: Daniel Hind

I&O_11
Option B would be the best option - developing the new homes across all our key towns. Retaining the greenbelt, would simply mean that all the homes would be focussed on Winsford - which is not where people from Chester want to live.  In addition, using the sustainable transport corridors would create whole new communities with no amenities such as doctors, schools, police & fire 

Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 31

Received: 07/07/2025

Respondent: Chris Jackson

I&O_34
SS11 Retain green belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 76

Received: 08/07/2025

Respondent: Via Sty

I&O_81
Either Option B or Option C would be the most appropriate 

Comment

Representation ID: 108

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Cockburn

Options
I&O_130
Option C

Comment

Representation ID: 134

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mike Mather

I&O_156
D. New targets need a new approach. We need more high quality jobs and housing and if the targets are to be met you need to think differently. It seems you're OK to save some fields that perhaps noone can see or cares about then bury others with traffic and poor service provision.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 176

Received: 15/07/2025

Respondent: Richard Cannon

I&O_199
Option A is most appropriate, and option A has identfified sites to meet the requirement

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 195

Received: 16/07/2025

Respondent: Jamie Pugh

I&O_223
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 200

Received: 16/07/2025

Respondent: Kate Gannon

I&O_228
Option A - retain the Green Belt. Developing the Green Belt land around Frodsham is: against the wishes of residents (as per our neighbourhood plan); not needed (an independent external report (Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (September 2023)) indicated that Frodsham has the potential to meet it's housing targets without the need to build on Greenbelt land, in line with the community's wishes.   disruptive for the surrounding local wildlife areas and livestock housed in local fields and farms.  likely to lead to negative traffic conditions as the roads in the Green Belt area (especially in the Bradley area) are not equipped for the increased traffic that a large housing devolopment would lead to. 

Comment

Representation ID: 243

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Emma Malpeli

SS5
I&O_273
Option A. There are enough brownfield sites in the area to accomodate housing. The greenbelt should not be touched. no one wants to live in a concrete jungle. The appeal of small towns and villages will be lost if they become sprawling housing estates. Houses are needed but to build on the greenbelt is not the answer, all other sites should be considered first.

Comment

Representation ID: 316

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: Tim Ashcroft

I&O_347
b

Comment

Representation ID: 393

Received: 26/07/2025

Respondent: Paul Holden

I&O_468
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 403

Received: 26/07/2025

Respondent: Ms Linda Smith

I&O_478
Option A is the only acceptable option to conserve the character of Cheshire West's Green Belt, prevent urban sprawl, retain high quality agricultural land and maintain separation distances between our villages and towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 424

Received: 27/07/2025

Respondent: Clare Ballantyne Roberts

I&O_504
Retain the Green Belt. Use brownfield sites and derelict urban areas to fulfill any obligations set by Central Government.

Comment

Representation ID: 465

Received: 16/07/2025

Respondent: Ms Nadine Smith

I&O_548


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 485

Received: 27/07/2025

Respondent: M L Jeal

I&O_568
Spacial Strategy While the Green belt option is attractive since it preserves the environment/ heritage and encourages reuse of existing sites, the increase in infrastructure pressure is a major disadvantage. Existing infrastructure is already under substantial pressure and experience of local projects suggests that profitable houses will be built while unprofitable infrastructure becomes 'unviable' as permissions are passed from one developer to another. The planning authority does not seem to have the authority or manpower to enforce/ ensure that what is originally agreed Is actually built. The sustainable option is likewise suspect. Putting houses on transport links assumes the work is where the transport links will service over an extended period of time. Also for railways unless houses are built within walking distance of the station transport is required to get to the station. If bus services are provided the houses can be anywhere. However this introduces an addition step in the journey to and from work increasing the time and hassle. If you require a car to get to the station this increases short journeys when ICE cars are both least efficient and most polluting.  Also if you have to fight for parking at the station people will end up thinking it is easier to drive to work - and I believe this is not the objective of sustainable development. Unless you can put in public transport like London or Manchester I suggest the option will only be viable where you can walk to the station or bus transport links take you to within walking distance of work. General comment Sites can be identified where perhaps hundreds of houses 'can' be built. However until the analysis is complete the requirement for house numbers and location is unknown. If government policy and objectives require 'immediate' action it is suggested that permission is given for a limited number of houses until hard evidence indicates both required numbers and location. Building large numbers of houses in the 'wrong' place doesn't appear to be a sustainable use of resources.

Comment

Representation ID: 614

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Pill

I&O_697
There really are no positives for this proposal and the only option I support is option 1 which is to retain the greenbelt area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 628

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Steve & Denise Kely

I&O_711
I strongly support Option A in the plan. Leave the Greenbelt as it currently is. Option A: Retain Green Belt. Cheshire West and Chester has a protected area in the north of the borough where development is restricted. To protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the Cheshire countryside only development that requires a countryside location will be permitted. Enabled settlement boundaries to be drawn to accommodate expansion where required. Seeks to retain the general extent of the North Cheshire Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 630

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: David Bradley

I&O_713
As a general response to the development of Greenbelt, I believe Option A to be most appropriate, we have enough sites around the borough, where redevelopment can take place without extending the development area. One specific area of concern is the triangle of land between Liverpool Road, Mostyn Road and Demage Lane, given the impact the Zoo has on the local area with additional traffic, the idea of putting the number of houses your plans suggests the area can hold, into this space would overwhelm and already overstretched area of the network. To clarify, my preference would be Option A, to leave the Greenbelt to the North of Chstere as it is.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 635

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Marc Vannerem

I&O_718
I believe that option A - Retain the Green Belt is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester.  While I appreciate the need for housing and employment growth across the borough, I believe that protecting our Green Belt is essential, not only for safeguarding Frodsham’s and other villages’ rural character and heritage, but also for mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity. The Green Belt in this location serves several vital functions: Environmental protection: The area includes ecologically sensitive habitats and supports local wildlife corridors. Landscape and character preservation: Development here would significantly alter the visual amenity and tranquil setting of the area. Recreational use and wellbeing: Local residents and visitors regularly use footpaths and green spaces in this area, contributing to mental and physical wellbeing. Infrastructure limitations: Kingsley Road and surrounding routes already experience traffic and congestion. Additional development would strain local infrastructure. I would urge the Council to prioritise brownfield sites, sustainable transport corridors, and regeneration within existing settlement boundaries instead.

Comment

Representation ID: 660

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Warren Chapman

SS 11
I&O_743
Hello, I would like to make the following comments on the Local Plan Consultation;   I support Option B strategy to following the existing Local Plan level as it appears to balance significant development around existing urban centres.   I strongly oppose Option C Sustainable Transport Corridors due the impact it will have across rural villages and landscapes.    The existing special character of Tarporley and Malpas will be destroyed by the scale of development proposed.   Whalley in the Ribble Valley has suffered such a fate in recent times and should be looked at as an  example of what not to do!   We need to make sure the cumulative impact of potential housing development  is considered as each site is developed to avoid the infrastructure issues experienced around Winnington, Northwich where a new bridge should have been built to take the additional traffic  resulting from the overall increase in housing.      regards Warren Chapman
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives
Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 664

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Kinnear

I&O_747
Option C makes the most sense in todays climate

Comment

Representation ID: 684

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Hughes

I&O_770
B

Comment

Representation ID: 706

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Diane Yeoman

I&O_800
I believe the green belt should be protected, it particular the fields behind dale side and the fields between Liverpool road and the canal access

Comment

Representation ID: 708

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Ashton

SS11
I&O_802
My strong preference is for Option A, retention of the greenbelt. Housig requirement have increased but the need for a green belt has not diminished. If anythng it has in creased in order top revent merging of conurbations and to retain wildlife havens and corridors

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 739

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Jan Armatage

Question SS 11
I&O_839
My preference is for Option C - sustainable transport corridors I woud suggest including the potential to reopen Beeston station between Chester and Crewe

Comment

Representation ID: 768

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Elaine Fenech

I&O_872
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should retain the green belt boundary (Option A).

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 774

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Tony Springett

I&O_878
  I would prefer "Option A to leave the Greenbelt to the North of Chester as it is".

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 781

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Dave Bell

I&O_885
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should retain the green belt boundary (Option A).

Comment

Representation ID: 782

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Dave Bell

I&O_886
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should retain the green belt boundary (Option A).

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 795

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Miss Hilary Belshaw

I&O_899
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C).

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors