Comment

Representation ID: 9494

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jamie Dodd

I&O_9989
Option A. You have already stated that all options are capable of supporting 29,000 new homes across CWAC, so it makes sense to retain all green belt land wherever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 9501

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kathleen Wood

I&O_9996
With regard to the proposed local plan, specifically question SS 11 I choose option A retain the greenbelt belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9550

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10045
Re: Pulford Lane, Dodleston 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: 9571

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10066
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 9612

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Banks

I&O_10108
I am writing to tell you that I am objecting to the Cheshire local plan for development in the Cuddington area including Delamere Park, and my preference would be option A to retain the green belt. Norley Road in the Cuddington Lane area is dangerous. Lorries and trucks, motorbikes and cars , race down this road at about 80 MPH, and no one takes any notice of the 30 mph sign which is there. The road is also very winding, which makes it more dangerous. There should not be any more openings onto this road. Parking for the shops at the junction with the A49 is horrendous, we need more parking space, not more houses.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9615

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Cockcroft

SS11
I&O_10111
I am answering question SS11 and my choice is: Option A: Retain The Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9644

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Campbell

I&O_10140
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. 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: 9663

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Cockcroft

I&O_10159
I am answering question SS11 and my choice is : Option A - Retain the Green Belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9664

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10160
Re: Sibbersfield Lane, Farndon 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: 9685

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10181
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 9692

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemarie Hewitt

I&O_10188
I am answering  question SS11 , My choice is option A ..Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9753

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Bell

I&O_10249
I am writing to express my strong support for Plan A in the current consultation on the new Local Plan for Weaverham. Although I do not believe Plan A is a positive move for Weaverham because of the pressure it would put on existing road infrastructure and services, I do believe it is the best option out of those proposed. Plan A represents the most sustainable and appropriate option for the village. It rightly protects the Green Belt, respects the scale and character of the community, and goes some way to acknowledging the infrastructure pressures already arising from recent developments such as Winnington, Hartford and the Wallerscote Salt Works. Key reasons for my support include: ·        Preserving the Green Belt to prevent overdevelopment, protect countryside, and retain village separation from other surrounding villages and from Northwich;   ·        Avoiding unsustainable pressure on roads. Traffic and parking are already significant issues in Weaverham at key times of day;   ·        Avoiding exacerbating the existing issue of oversubscription to the high school and GP services within the village;   ·        Protecting agricultural land, biodiversity, and local habitats;    ·        Maintaining the historic rural identity of Weaverham;   ·        Prioritising brownfield development and urban intensification where appropriate.   Plan A offers a more proportionate approach to housing without sacrificing the long-term sustainability and character of our village.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9766

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Harris

I&O_10263
I am answering question Ss11 and my choice is Option A, retain green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9773

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Richards

I&O_10270
QUESTION SS11:     RETAIN THE GREEN BELT.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9777

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Marrow

I&O_10274
I am replying to question SS11. My response is Option A - protect the greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9778

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kathrine McLennan

I&O_10275
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. 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: 9779

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Geoff Swaffer

I&O_10276
In response to the consultation document I am just answering Question SS 11 and my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt. My reasons are that there is not the overall infrastructure to support the potential housing in NEP06 and that it would significantly change the area adversely.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9780

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10277
Re: Birch Heath Lane, Christleton 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: 9782

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Greenwood

I&O_10279
Option A. We are totally opposed to option A. We need to safeguard and protect our greenbelt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9795

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Irene Hodkinson

I&O_10292
I would like respond to the current consultation regarding the local plan 2025.  I would like to choose Option C - question SS 11. 

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 9804

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Pereira

I&O_10301
Question SS11: I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt. Reasons: Housing need should be met through brownfield, regeneration sites, and vacant premises first.   Green Belt land supports biodiversity, flood mitigation, and climate resilience. Roads, schools, primary care, and utilities are already under pressure. New growth should be infrastructure-led. Protecting the Green Belt maintains settlement character and prevents coalescence. Higher densities and mixed-use near public transport can deliver homes without Green Belt release.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9805

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10302
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 9810

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Dunbar

I&O_10307
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large development on greenbelt land in and around Parkgate and Neston. I am answering question SS 11 and my choice is option A - retain the greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9887

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Greater Manchester Police

I&O_10384
To whom it may concern, I would like to retain the Green Belt Land in BARNTON. I’m appalled that the Council would consider this as an option. My house would be directly impacted should this development be granted as my garden backs onto the land highlighted. We have Brown Sites that still haven’t been built upon- which is a blot on the landscape- Winnington, ICI land, EON land. Why would green belt land even considered? Huge impact on wildlife, badgers, newts, bats, woodpeckers just to name a few all have a habit in those fields. The land is used as arable land by the farmer – every year for food crops? So clearly this land is used and has a purpose? Drainage is a huge issue, junction Hough Lane and Cogshall Lane. All roads surrounding the green belt area are country single track roads- no infrastructure to cope with extra houses/cars. You can’t even look after the roads we have currently- out estate is a minefield of pot holes. The only bridge linking Northwich to Barnton is already buckling with the strain. It is my understanding that you have several parish councils responsible for the land highlighted - what consultation have you completed? Barnton, Comberbach, Anderton. This will have a massive impact on schools/doctors/dentists in the area- who already can’t cope with the demand. Also huge impact on wellbeing for local residents that walk around these areas. Why hasn’t local residents who will be directly impacted ie all the houses that back on to Hough Lane been contacted? This is purely a very quick email to raise our concerns as we have only just been informed about this – with 3 days left to object.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9888

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tesni Properties Ltd

I&O_10385
GROWTH OPTIONS Three broad options have been presented by CW&C within this regulation 18 consultation. While these scenarios explore different distributions of growth, they share a common emphasis on directing the majority of development to the main towns and service centres. Whilst this proposal evidently comes with it’s advantages, it is essential that the plan also recognises the role of smaller settlements in contributing to housing delivery. Over-reliance on large strategic sites or heavily constrained urban areas risks undermining the Council’s ability to maintain a deliverable five-year housing land supply, which is a key test of soundness under national policy. Each of the three potential spatial distribution strategies have been tested through the Sustainability Appraisal process and provides a useful starting point for debate. However, it is important that the Council maintains flexibility and does not commit too rigidly to any single option at this early stage. A hybrid strategy, which combines the benefits of each option while addressing their respective shortcomings, will be required to ensure the new Local Plan is positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. Option A: Protecting the Green Belt This option seeks to minimise Green Belt release by directing the majority of new housing and employment growth to settlements outside the Green Belt, notably Winsford, Northwich, and other non-Green-Belt towns. It also places greater emphasis on expansion within Rural Service Centres. While this approach is consistent with national policy in terms of safeguarding Green Belt land, it creates significant risks. It places undue pressure on a limited number of urban locations, many of which are already contending with regeneration challenges and infrastructure constraints. Relying too heavily on brownfield and regeneration sites can create uncertainty around delivery rates, especially where land assembly, remediation, or market demand issues are complex. From a Tesni perspective, Option A does not provide the necessary flexibility or diversity of supply to maintain a robust five-year housing land supply across the plan period. Option B: Continuation of the Current Approach Option B broadly reflects the adopted spatial strategy, distributing growth across Chester, Ellesmere Port, Winsford, Northwich, and the network of Key Service Centres. Under this scenario, around 11,000 homes would be delivered through Green Belt release. This approach offers a more balanced distribution of growth compared to Option A, aligning new homes with employment opportunities and existing transport networks. It also reduces over-reliance on regeneration sites, recognising the contribution that strategic Green Belt releases can make to overall supply. However, the risk with Option B is that too much emphasis is placed on large strategic sites, which typically require long lead-in times, substantial infrastructure investment, and complex phasing arrangements. This can undermine delivery in the early years of the plan period. To make this option effective, it should be complemented by smaller-scale allocations in a wider range of settlements, ensuring that housing can come forward quickly and steadily throughout the borough. Option C: Transport Corridor Growth This option seeks to concentrate development along established and emerging sustainable transport corridors, particularly rail and bus routes. More than 12,000 homes would be delivered through Green Belt release to support this option. In principle, aligning growth with public transport infrastructure is consistent with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and reflects broader sustainability goals, including reducing car dependency and promoting compact development. However, the deliverability of this option is contingent on significant transport investment being secured and delivered in a timely manner. If these improvements are delayed or scaled back, the housing trajectory could falter. Furthermore, focusing growth so narrowly along transport corridors risks neglecting the role of smaller settlements which, although not served by high-frequency public transport, are still sustainable and capable of delivering early housing supply Individually, each of the three options has clear limitations. A more robust and effective approach would combine their positive elements: focusing significant growth on the main towns and transport corridors, while also distributing a proportion of development to smaller rural settlements. This hybrid strategy would diversify the land supply, support delivery in the early years of the plan period and provide resilience against the risks of over-reliance on a small number of large sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 9889

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Millsted

SS11
I&O_10386
Answering question SS 11 Option A - retain greenbelt belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9890

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Grant and Pauline Oakes

SS11
I&O_10387
We have studied the documentation for the 3 options regarding the local planning policy, but are unsure as to how we submit our choice of Options? Please can you clarify this ASAP as we realise the deadline for choosing options is August 29th. We are very much in favour of Option C and see it as the most sustainable plan to build around transport corridors and to help ease some traffic congestion and pollution around the County.  This will in effect also share the housing burden across the County, allowing more widespread affordable housing , and alleviate some of the over-building which is already taking place in the town of Winsford. We fear that this already most socially deprived town in the County cannot be expected to sustain such over development and unbalanced housing development of Options A and B.   For the population of the County to progress fairly, we think affordable and substantially more housing MUST take place on Cheshire West's Green Belt, so that our younger generations will have both social and affordable housing for them around the essential transport corridors of the County. We are also appalled to think that Option A would plan 11,000 houses in one already over-crowded town of Winsford, with no  credible option for people to move into expanded village areas around the whole of the County. |In these very challenging economic times, how would be beneficial to the many of the whole County as opposed to the lesser number in over-protected "green and pleasant land" of the Green Belt.  Option C is the only equitable choice for us.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 9891

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Hazel Simpson

I&O_10388
In terms of the proposed housing expansion plan in the Northwich area and specifically question SS11, I strongly advocate for option A which is to retain the existing green belt and safeguard our countryside.  I vehemently oppose any other option related to the above.
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 9892

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: John Irving

I&O_10389
I am  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 in and out   There has been extensive development in the Cheshire West area in recent years, surely limits have been hit and there is no requirement to both ruin and further gridlock the area with more. I would further add you need to look at the places around Northwich in general where traffic is down to one single lane putting added pressure on travelling, particularly in the morning and evenings. I TOTALLY OBJECT TO ANY PLANS TO DEVELOP IN THE AREA : I AM Answering QUESTION SS 11 and my choice is OPTION A : RETAIN THE GREENBELT LAND

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9893

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth O'Dea

I&O_10390
For the planning proposal Northwich- Question SS 11  I am in favour of option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt