Comment

Representation ID: 9329

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heather Devenport

I&O_9823


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9330

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Donna Burden

I&O_9824


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9346

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashall Land

Agent: Marrons

I&O_9840
As concluded in the new Local Plan’s Sustainability Appraisal (June 2025), there isn’t a specific option that scores more positively than the others in terms of sustainable growth. All three of the options support sustainable growth, housing, healthy communities, and employment, with positive impacts on vitality of centre and services. Each option also relies heavily on greenfield land and includes significant development at Northwich. To meet the significantly higher housing targets required for the new Local Plan, the Council must consider a whole range of options, big and small, and certainly shouldn’t rule out any smaller sites role in supporting growth at this stage. All potential sites for housing need should be evaluated as part of a comprehensive strategic approach to determine how any homes can be built in the identified key growth areas, including Northwich.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9347

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashall Land

Agent: Marrons

I&O_9841
As concluded in the new Local Plan’s Sustainability Appraisal (June 2025), there isn’t a specific option that scores more positively than the others in terms of sustainable growth. All three of the options support sustainable growth, housing, healthy communities, and employment, with positive impacts on vitality of centre and services. Each option also relies heavily on greenfield land and includes significant development at Northwich. To meet the significantly higher housing targets required for the new Local Plan, the Council must consider a whole range of options, big and small, and certainly shouldn’t rule out any smaller sites role in supporting growth at this stage. All potential sites for housing need should be evaluated as part of a comprehensive strategic approach to determine how any homes can be built in the identified key growth areas, including Northwich.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 9364

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr M Roberts

I&O_9858
I am answering Question SS 11 and my choice choice is:  Option A – Retain the Green Belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9365

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dave Banton

SS 11
I&O_9859
With regard to the above consultation, I am answering Question SS 11 and that my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9366

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Great Boughton Parish Council

I&O_9860
Please accept my support for option’s B with CH01 mixed community and housing and CH04 housing. This area North of Chester is extremely under developed and has strong links to Deeside Industrial areas and motorway access. I do appreciate the need for new affordable homes for younger people as I have three sons of my own and the prices in Chester villages are so high and the amount of student accommodation in the city, prohibits our young people being able to start their own lives in the city and forces to remain at home or move away.    

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9367

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Mallon

SS11
I&O_9861
Hello Regarding your Local plan consultation and with respect to your spatial strategy options I would like to register my selection of Option A - retain the Green Belt. My reasons for selection of this: Contrary to national/local planning policy Violation of Green Belt protections Not in keeping with the character of the area (this is greenbelt, adding to the quality of life of those that live both sides of it) Unsustainable development Causes irreversible environmental damage Loss of biodiversity Threat to local wildlife habitats Destruction of natural landscape Erosion of green corridors Increased carbon footprint Damage to ecosystem services I am also concerned for my future and my children's future as we just become one big urban sprawl.  Brown field sites surely? Cheshire West and Cheshire Council - you have one big licence to do as you please without doing the minimum.  I have no doubt that this is a box ticking exercise and you will do as you please.  But for what it is worth this is my view and my objection in this 'democratic' process.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9372

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9867
Re: Pearl Lane, Chester 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: 9374

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: John James

SS11
I&O_9869
Dear sir Further to you planning policy I as a CWAC rate payer and resident I prefer to keep our green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9375

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola Jones

I&O_9870
I am responding to SS11 and my choice is Option A to retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9378

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Houghton Eccles

SS11
I&O_9873
Dear planning policy team, I am writing in response to question ss11.  I strongly urge the council to retain green belt and not allow it to be built on. It's vital for protecting our natural environment and preventing urban sprawl. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9386

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Sage

SS 11
I&O_9881
To whom it may concern We write to advise that we support the Option B Local Plan and strongly oppose any development not covered by that option. The contents of the letter below fully express our views and would ask that you give them your consideration and support. "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 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.   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.    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.    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. 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 only Option B along with urgent attention to health and education services will support a sustainable village going forward. Having considered the three options proposed, I strongly support Option B that recognises the considered strategy within the existing local plan.  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."  

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9387

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Millsted

I&O_9882
Answering question SS11 - my choice is option A - maintain greenbelt. I am particularly concerned with potential developments in and around Weaverham. The size of the developments would take away invaluable Greenbelt, meant to be protected for generations to come. It would also put pressure of the surrounding road networks and infrastructure.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9394

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Pitt

I&O_9889
I am writing in connection with the proposals to build new homes on our precious green belt in Parkgate and Neston. I am answering Question SS 11 and my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. I believe passionately in protecting our countryside, preserving the character of our villages, and safeguarding the green spaces that are vital to both our environment and our community's wellbeing. Any future development should be focused on grey and brownfield sites—not on our diminishing natural landscapes. The proposed development poses a serious threat to the distinct identities of neighbouring communities, risks merging them into one, and undermines the rural character of the area. These green spaces are not just scenic—they play a critical role in promoting mental and physical health, and they serve as essential breathing spaces for local residents. Moreover, the plans do not appear to take into account the significant pressure they would place on existing infrastructure and public services. As a non-driver, I can attest firsthand to the inadequacy of current public transport links to and from Neston and Parkgate. The area is already very concerning, and this situation would only worsen with increased population. Local services such as GP surgeries, dental practices, schools, water, and sewage systems are already under strain. Without substantial investment, they will not be able to cope with further demand. Additionally, increased traffic from large-scale development would exacerbate congestion on already overloaded roads. In short, the potential impact of this development far outweighs any perceived benefits. I urge the Council to carefully consider the long-term consequences for Neston and Parkgate and to restrict any new development to brownfield and greyfield sites, where it will have the least impact on our environment and infrastructure.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9398

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Watts

I&O_9893
As I understand it there are three options to choose from, A, B and C, of which A is to continue with the existing plan then B and C includes graduated increases. I would like you to consider the overall impact of each of these on a small community such as Cuddington and Sandiway, I believe that having exceeded our current allotment and shown that it was achievable we should have plan A adopted.   Furthermore if developers are not willing in their initial plans to include improved infrastructure then any development is not sustainable.   It is crucial that we continue to build homes that meet the needs of our population and ensure there is affordability attached not profitability with the emphasis on smaller dwellings the percentage of these being equal or greater than the larger homes.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9404

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kerrie Hughes

I&O_9899
I am answering question SS 11 with Option A - retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9408

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Grace Daly-Shone

I&O_9903
I am emailing with regards to the consultation SS11. I wish to select Option A retain the green belt. Protect the green spaces.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9410

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Whalley

I&O_9905
 I am FOR option A, to retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9418

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9913
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 9420

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Lloyd

I&O_9915
I am answering Question SS 11 and my choice is: Option A - Retain the Green Belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9438

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kim Irving

S11
I&O_9933
I totally oppose the proposed applications to build on green belt land in the above areas and indeed all around Hartford.   This is a lovely area with green belt land which is home to many and varied wildlife species.  Not only that but adding further houses and their inevitable vehicles to already overcrowded roads and services which are extended to their maximum is completely wrong.  Where are the supermarkets which these houses would use : in Northwich which is already overcrowded and difficult to get into.    There has been extensive development in the Cheshire West area in recent years : surely limits have been hit and there is no requirement to ruin the area with more. I TOTALLY OBJECT TO ANY PLANS TO DEVELOP IN THE AREA : I AM ANSWEING QUESTION SS 11 and my choose is OPTION A : RETAIN THE GREENBELT LAND

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9444

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Cogan

I&O_9939
I am answering SS11 question I am voting for option A to retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9448

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Robin Jones

SS11
I&O_9943
I have tried to fill in the consultation document but it is completely non user friendly, so I have resorted to an email. I just want to sa6 that neither option b nor option c are desirable or in keeping with our city. My preferred option is option A. Green belt was developed to prevent urban sprawl and that should still be the case

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9449

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tricia Dutton

I&O_9944
I am responding to the proposed plans for housing and have looked carefully at each of the suggestions and would put my options as either B or C

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

Comment

Representation ID: 9450

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tricia Dutton

I&O_9945
I am responding to the proposed plans for housing and have looked carefully at each of the suggestions and would put my options as either B or C

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 9451

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mia Nolan

I&O_9946
Option A SS11 retain the green belt is preferred, and we object to that land being built on. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9452

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: S P Ryle

SS11
I&O_9947
Re ; Question SS11 My answer is Option A - RETAIN THE GREEN BELT.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9453

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Palfreyman

SS11
I&O_9948
My response to Question SS11 would be OPTION 'A' retain the Green Belt. It makes no sense to allow Frodsham and Helsby to effectively merge along the M56 corridor. Firstly, there are plenty of Brown field sites available within the current Frodsham boundary. Leisure centre Princeway and Fountain lane Brooks works among them. And Secondly, there has yet to be an assessment of the impact on local infrastructure of the current huge housing development in Helsby itself.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9471

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Anna & David Last

SS11
I&O_9966
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). Development first and foremost should be in and around town centres, unused buildings etc

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors