Comment

Representation ID: 8059

Received: 17/09/2025

Respondent: Flintshire County Council

I&O_8548
Each option has its own particular pros and cons and it is not considered that it is for this Council to state a preference for one option. It may well be that there is an option which represents a hybrid of the three options. What is of more concern to this Council is whether the spatial strategy would result in potential growth areas adjoining or in close proximity to Flintshire and this is addressed in the section below.

Comment

Representation ID: 8073

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Robinson

SS 11
I&O_8562
I am emailing to express my concern at the potential proposal to develop green belt land (for housing) along Common Lane which would put significant extra traffic onto this road (and specifically through the crossroads between Common Lane / Eggbridge Lane / Moor Lane). I have been aware of frequent vehicle collisions at this junction, and also of a serious cycling incident there. This junction is even more crowded at school drop off / collection times due to its proximity to Waverton Primary School (when the road is also heavily congested with parked vehicles).  I do not think any more house building should occur in areas where there is no direct access to a main road, new traffic should not be routed through existing minor village roads which

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8196

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Lesley Halliday

I&O_8685
I would like to express my support for Option C The reason for this is that Winsford has had a lot of development in recent years and I think it needs the infrastructure upgrading before any more development, roads are congested and in a dreadful state of repair. New Road is absolutely diabolical. Parking is a major issue especially at Winsford Station with cars parking on Station Road and Rookery Rise because of 3 fundamental issues the station car park is very badly designed because of this there are not enough spaces for the people that use the station currently and the station charges for parking so people trying to avoiding additional costs are parking in surrounding areas causing issues for local residents and making junctions and roundabouts dangerous because of parked cars. The station is in need of more and better parking and a facelift. The station is used regularly and there’s nothing there if your train is delayed no cafe or anywhere to get a drink. Rookery Rise has seen an unprecedented increase in abandoned cars being left for months and months often without tax or MOT again causing worry and distress to residents and causing parking congestion and concerns. Parking in all neighbourhoods is an issue existing houses do not have sufficient parking, with children remaining at home with parents longer too there are more and more cars.  Existing areas need to be assessed to see where parking issues could be alleviated. There are grass verges all along Rookery Rise some of this could be turned into road parking areas making the road safer for motorists cyclists and pedestrians. The proposal for parking for new developments needs to be increased and have some sort of parking area for visitors. 1 space for a 1 bed room properties needs to be 2 spaces, 2 bedroom properties should have min 3 spaces, 3 bedroom property should have 4 spaces and 4+ bedrooms need 5 or more spaces! We already struggle to get doctors and dentist appointments so this is something that needs addressing in the town and there is absolutely nothing to do in the town! Hardly any decent restaurants (apart from the Indian on Wharton Road), no nice restaurants even things like Nando’s that are semi healthy or nice pub restaurants. All we have are fast food restaurants that are synonymous with areas of deprivation and are promoting unhealthy habits and lifestyles which are eventually going to have a major impact on the town, the services and the infrastructure if not addressed or balanced with healthier options. The redevelopment of the town centre has been a major disappointment, with promises of a new shopping centre with increased dining and evening offer but none of this has been delivered instead it doesn’t look much different to what was already there except the roof no longer leaks (allegedly!). The only nice independent bars are the opposite side of town to where I live and if you want to drink it’s a very long walk or a taxi ride. Why can’t Winsford have nice cafe bars with pavement cafes and nice restaurants to eat in all of which would promote employment and add to the economy? There are no recreational facilities at all no cinema, Ten Pin Bowling or other activities. The town very much lacks any sort of social scene, unlike Northwich which has a great selection of local restaurants and bars giving choice and options to residents who want more from a night out than vertical drinking or fast food. I shouldn’t have to resort to going to Northwich because my own town is so crap, it would be nice to have things to do to support local businesses and put back money in the local economy where I live. I support option C but in my opinion before any more houses are built the infrastructure (road network, services, social scene, station parking) needs to be strengthened improved and maintained for the existing residents.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 8205

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Anneka Burek

SS 11
I&O_8694
I have concerns about the impact of native wildlife that have already been impacted on thee current Wrexham Rd development and have had to relocate to other vacant fields. If these then become housing where will the wildlife go? I suspect there will be an increase in urban foxes raiding domestic bins because their natural pray source has been diminished and this brings a whole environmental health risk.  Then we have the issue of the risk of flooding as these fields are naturally used to house excess rainfall and so where is this water going to go if houses are built on this land? The area already has clay soil which isn't very absorbent so the water will be inclined to run off the top of the land rather than soaking into the earth. Nearby properties will be at risk as a result for flooding and housing insurance prices will skyrocket to compensate for this risk.  Lastly we have a lack of resource fit to serve a general population increase in this area. Kings Moat development was supposed to bring a doctors, school and extra resources to cope with the demand. The school has been approved but there has been no word on the doctors or excess resources so Lache Medical Centre and Handbridge Medical Centre will be overwhelmed with an increase in demand for services. By keeping this land as Green Belt then at least the current services aren't oversubscribed and won't become unfit for purpose. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8206

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8695
Re: Greenway Lane, Malpas 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

Comment

Representation ID: 8237

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8726
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Support

Representation ID: 8253

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jackie Carter

I&O_8742
I understand that the Government has instigated a review of local plans in order to meet its current housing targets. It is my belief that there are more sustainable solutions to any housing shortage than the building of large developments in under-resourced areas that will irreversibly destroy the environment. For Sandiway and Cuddington, there is an existing and appropriate Local Plan (2015-2030) and the assessments and logic applied when this was drawn up should be retained in any updated version. The existing plan (incorporated partly into the new Option B) allowed for additional housing on carefully selected sites that makes use of brownfield land. So far 200 homes have been delivered in this small community. Most of which are larger family properties rather than the affordable properties required for first time buyers and those wishing to downsize whilst staying within the village. In this time our only GP Practice was closed against public wishes and there is increasing strain on school places. We have a responsibility to protect and enhance our natural and historic environment rather than to build over it and destroy it forever. 2. Farmland is going to be increasingly important for the UK’s food security and is gaining growing attention across the UK. According to the National Farmers’ Union, 'the UK has a “criminal” dependence on foreign countries to source some of its food’ and we are no better prepared now than we were before the Pandemic. Good quality agricultural land is going to be increasingly important for our small island particularly in the current unstable geopolitical times we are experiencing. The farm land around Sandiway and Cuddington has been farmed for hundreds of years and still is today. It needs protecting from irreversible destruction at the hands of Developers taking commercial advantage of a short-sighted Government housing strategy.  3. The government’s own figures show that abandoned and derelict houses across England number c. 720,000. Utilising these empty homes would contribute around 50% of their target whilst ensuring properties become available near established infrastructure. It would also reduce these sites vulnerability to crime and further decline. Regeneration should be the priority for helping housing shortages before farmland and/or small under-resourced communities with limited infrastructure are destroyed forever to bulid properties that in no way address local needs.  4. Option C identifies Sandiway and Cuddington as offering 'sustainable transport corridors’ which the Government believes would support significant housebuilding. This is a false assertion as our village is only serviced by a small hourly bus service and a small, unreliable train service. Local roads are already carrying too high a volume of traffic and there are no major employment opportunities in the immediate area. Any additional housing around the edges of the village would encourage car usage. This would be disastrous for the environment and safety of our community. If home working is assumed in any plans, then this discounts a) the drive for employers to get their workforce back into the office and b) the school runs by car that will inevitably accompany all housing developments as there are no safe, walkable routes to schools, especially post Year 6. 5. Local health, education and transport services are already inadequate for the existing village community. Our GP Practice was recently closed and all other local Practices are either rated ‘poor’ in the recent GP Patient Surveys or are already oversubscribed. so none of the options for the Plan currently work and urgent attention is still needed to health and education services that will support a sustainable village going forward. Having reconsidered the three options proposed, I feel strongly that none of them is viable for our community. If we fail to pay attention to the needs of our existing community and the needs of future generations by supporting food security through farming, primary healthcare needs and environmental protection, we will be heading towards an irreversible disaster. 

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 8278

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Benson

SS11
I&O_8767
I am responding to your Regulation 18 consultation on the Local Plan Issues and Options with particular regard to the growth options for the Frodsham area (FRO01, FRO02, FRO03), where I have been a resident for over 40 years. I prefer Option A – maintain greenbelt. There are many brown field sites, areas for infilling and empty building which could be developed to provide affordable homes in the CWAC borough.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8303

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Brian Morris

SS11
I&O_8792
I select OPTION A - RETAIN THE GREEN BELT for inclusion in the above plan for the following reasons. (A) General   (1) Retention of the Green Belt             With the current emphasis on climate warming,CO2 absorption etc. any destruction/erosion of the Green Belt cannot be justified. The local authority should be protecting the Green Belt not contemplating building on it.             Circa 2001 the then local authority (Vale Royal) adopted an appraisal of the Conservation Area in Weaverham. This appraisal advocated retention of a green area to the west of the village. When CWAC took over they ignored/rejected this and gave planning permission for the housing development now known as Hanging Gate Court. This destroyed beneficial and attractive greenery to be replaced by unattractive white housing blocks. There should be no further destruction/erosion of the desirable,valuable and important green spaces.     (2) Village amenities                Basically Weaverham is full and any increase in housing/population will require significant increase in the available amenities. In particular the medical and dental facilities would need to be doubled and retail outlets would need to be increased with improved access and parking. Any increase in the use of the current shops would create even more damage to the dangerous and badly maintained access road to the Northwich Road shops.                Parking near the only secondary school in the village is dangerously inadequate causing problems in the Lime Avenue,Forest Street,Withins Lane area. Increased use of the High School will make this situation dangerously intolerable.                Current parking at Acton Bridge railway station is inadequate resulting in all day,roadside parking on Station Road making use of the highway in front of the Hazel Pear Inn and the railway station significantly more difficult. Increased population will lead to increased use of the station and its car park making the situation dangerously worse.   (B) NOR 11 area -West of Sandy Lane     (1) Housing or access to housing will be dominated by existing overhead power cables and a large supporting pylon. There is evidence that overhead  power lines can be a health hazard. There can be no justification for frequent use of roads near such power lines and even less for building homes near them.      (2) Problems of parking at Acton Bridge station are outlined in Para, A2 above. The proximity of NOR11 to the station can only make things worse      (3) Access to the NOR11 site would be problematic both during development and occupation. Access to the site from Sandy Lane would require improvements to Sandy Lane (widening,provision of footpaths,improved visibility etc.) to make this option even remotely viable. Additionally, traffic problems are likely at the road junctions in front of the Hanging Gate Inn and at the Well Lane/Sandy Lane junction and at the Sandy Lane/A49 junction. Any development of the NOR 12 site would worsen these problems and access the NOR11 site from Station Road would increase the problems at Acton Bridge station (see para, A2 above).   (C)  NOR 12 Area - North of Farm Road        (1) Access to this site is virtually impossible for any vehicle larger than a car being limited to single file traffic in Well Lane towards Sandy Lane; impossible single file traffic via Shadybrook Lane; and the use of Well Lane towards to Church Street which is effectively single file traffic due to roadside parking towards Church Street. Church Street itself is only suitable for light traffic. Access to Sandy Lane via the narrow, single file section of Shadybrook Lane and a partially blind junction to Sandy Lane is totally impractical.    (D) NOR 10 area          (1) The problems outlined above apply equally to any development of the NOR 10 area excluding the access problems to NOR 11 and 12.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8373

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Debbie Wallis

SS11
I&O_8864
Hello, I want to vote for A on the local plan Many thanks

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8388

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8879
Re: Maddocks Hill, Norley 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

Comment

Representation ID: 8432

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Hugh Benson

I&O_8923
I prefer Option A – maintain greenbelt. There are many brown field sites, areas for infilling and empty building which could be developed to provide affordable homes in the CWAC borough.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8447

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8938
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 8477

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Green Belt Alliance

I&O_8968
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8496

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Webb

SS11
I&O_8987
Hi im a resident of winsford wharton. I would like to say I vote for option C.  Thank you 

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 8577

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Great Boughton Parish Council

SS11
I&O_9068
Option A - Retain the Green Belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8606

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9097
Re: Boathouse Lane, Parkgate, Heswall 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

Comment

Representation ID: 8633

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Charles Scott

SS11
I&O_9124
Thanks for your talk at neston recently. My wife has already written to you and I would also like to support protection for option A, ie protection of green space. Even marginal overlap into green space only leads to future incursions. Neston ,I believe ,admires its countryside both for farming, leisure and protection of our wildlife particularly wintering wildfowl. I recognise the need for affordable accommodation but hopefully this could be met by brownfield sites both in the town and elsewhere. Thank you for your consideration,

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8635

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9126
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 8678

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Carol and Daniel Morgan

SS11
I&O_9170
Question SS 11 – Which Option is the most appropriate spatial strategy? Option A – Retain the Green Belt. This approach is the most sustainable, as it directs growth to urban areas and brownfield land, protects the countryside, and supports regeneration.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8728

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Anthea Marsland

SS11
I&O_9221
Please accept this email as my objection to the proposal to develop on the Greenbelt land surrounding the village.  I wish to register my response to question SS11 and my choice is opt A to retain Green Belt.  Thank you  Kind regards

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8749

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Hughes

SS11
I&O_9242
Dear Sirs, I would like to make comment on the above consultation, specifically SS 11, in relation to the spatial strategy options for the Borough. Having watched and considered your virtual presentation, I would tend to favour a hybrid between option A and B , whereby there is a more proportionate spread of development across the borough in proportion to existing conurbation (option B), but where development is prioritised in brownfield sites and outside of the green belt/open countryside (option A).   Option C seems impractical for the following reasons: Development is disproportionately focussed in the north of the borough Focussing development on existing transport hubs whilst theoretically is a nice thought, it assumes that said transport links are heading to destinations you want to go to For instance, I live in Cuddington and work in Sproston – it is physically impossible to travel by bus, as the last bus is before I would be able to connect to it, coming home it is impractical to travel by train, as I would have to travel from Cuddington to Chester, Chester to Crewe, Crewe to Holmes Chapel, and then walk a long way – to do this two times a day, fives days a week is unfeasible time wise, and unaffordable financially! (compared to 12 ½ miles/30 minutes in the car each way) The capacity of said transport hubs are not sufficient to cope with the populations they already serve For instance in Cuddington and Sandiway, with a population of 6,196 (Census 2021), the hourly train service of two carriages each way, and hourly bus service of one single decker each way until 6 p.m. is wholly insufficient for the existing population, especially in rush hour Many locations identified (e.g., Neston, Mouldsworth and Delamere) are remote and therefore said locations would be undesirable based on “sustainable” transport links alone – i.e., you can’t just “pop to the shops” if they are not there to pop to – you are not going to use a train to go and buy one pint of milk. Conclusion I hope the above thoughts are of sufficient breadth and quality for inclusion in your considerations  If you require any further information or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully,  

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 8773

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Gandy

SS11
I&O_9266
Question SS11: Spatial Strategy I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C).

Comment

Representation ID: 8783

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Platt

SS11
I&O_9276
To whom it may concern, I am a resident in Weaverham, Northwich and I am fundamentally against the proposed plans to build on green belt land.  Not only would this ruin our countryside, but the local amenities in Northwich are already stretched to the limit as it is. Schools are packed and it is impossible to find an NHS dentist and doctors’ appointments are equally hard to secure. This planned building will only make these issues worse, and thus make the lives of existing residents harder. Not only this, but the roads in towns like Northwich are not designed or built for heavy traffic. They are under extreme pressure as it is! With all of this in mind, I am answering question SS 11 and my choice for the plans is Option A - Retain the Green Belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8784

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Christina Allmark

SS11
I&O_9277
I am answering questions SS 11 My choice is option A- retain the green belt .

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8785

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9278
Re: Chester Road, Huntington 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

Comment

Representation ID: 8786

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca White

SS11
I&O_9279
Dear whoever this may concern My name is Rebecca White and I am a homeowner in Weaverham. I am writing to answer Question SS 11 of the consultation document and my choice is:  Option A – Retain the Green Belt We do not need or want any new housing developments in Weaverham and especially not at the expense of losing green belt land!

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8804

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Phillip Jones

SS11
I&O_9297
Question SS11 my choice is Option A Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8811

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9304
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 8838

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe Northeast

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_9331
In answer to Question SS 11 my choice is Option A – Retain the Green Belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt