Comment

Representation ID: 10545

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Brian Smith

I&O_11043
My option is Option A to retain the Green Belt. which a protected area in the north of the Borough where development is restricted.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10549

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Harvey Ashworth

I&O_11047
Regarding the planning consultation, I would like to highlight my choice. Question SS 11 my choice is: Option A - Retain the Green Belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10550

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Sloka

I&O_11048
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 - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 10554

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Laura McKenna

I&O_11052
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: 10560

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Damon Leonard

I&O_11058


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10563

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Evans

I&O_11061
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: 10607

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Archer

I&O_11105
I am answering Question SS 11 and my option is Option A: To retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10608

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Evison

I&O_11106
In response to question SS11, I support the retention of the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10609

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Elias Tallis-Ayub

I&O_11107
In response to question SS 11 I am choosing option A to retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10613

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jean Bradley

I&O_11111
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: 10614

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sonny Quilty

I&O_11112
I’m answering question SS 11 option A retain the green belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10623

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Dodd

I&O_11121
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. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10648

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11146
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 options would have positive effects on housing provision, healthy communities, and the local economy and employment by providing a mix of employment sites. All three options also scored positively for vitality and viability of centres, safeguarding existing shops and services by focusing on providing additional development in or close to centres. All three options also have a greater percentage of development on greenfield land and include 5000 plus homes and a greenfield employment expansion at Northwich. Nonetheless, our responses to the other spatial strategy related questions below provide more details as to why we perceive Option B to be the most appropriate of the three options presented in the consultation document.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 10658

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Culshaw

I&O_11156
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: 10669

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Laurel Johnson

I&O_11167
In response to the consultation regarding building on our precious green belt, I write to answer Question SS 11 - my choice is Option A – Retain the Green Belt. New housing should be built on brownfield land, and existing disused or unsuitable housing should be regenerated or demolished and built upon. Our green belt should be protected from greedy developers who regard them as cheaper sites to build upon than existing brownfield land. Our green spaces and the wildlife which inhabits them are irreplaceable, and to lose them just so that developers can maximise their profits is unforgivable. The future of our environment must not suffer for their gains. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10674

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne Arnold

I&O_11172


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10675

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nick Casewell

I&O_11173
In response to the ongoing consultation about home building in the area, I would like to respond to question SS11, with the following answer: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10676

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chantelle Abel

I&O_11174
To whom it may concern. Preserve the beauty of the city and green belt. Option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10683

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Farndon Parish Council

I&O_11181
(d) – none of these, on their own and as reflected in the current Development Plan. Options A to C all represent a rather lax approach to a complex problem, with a failure to properly engage with the burden upon the Council to prepare a Development Plan consistent with current national planning policy, although Option B presents the most logical and lawful starting point. The Green Belt clearly cannot be retained in its current context or extent, given the relaxation in approach to inappropriate development introduced in the December 2024 NPPF (see also answers by Farndon Parish Council to questions SS9 and GB1). Significant areas of current Green Belt are highly likely to now fall within the NPPF/PPG definition of Grey Belt, which in itself militates against maintaining the `Green Belt in its current form and extent. That will result in increased levels of Green Belt release, in the inherently more sustainable areas of the Borough, and a consequential reduction in the levels of allocations required in the more remote and less sustainable areas of the Borough (i.e. the current suggestion of a total of 3000 dwellings across the lower tier settlements will inevitably reduce with greater levels of Green Belt release).   Similarly, in respect of options B and C, the current local plan was drafted in a different national planning policy context, and in a Borough where the current Green Belt comprises at least 42% of land, and where some of that land will now be considered to be suitable for development, particularly housing development, the current Local Plan level and distribution of development will no longer be defensible or sound, without amendment.   The current form and extent of Green Belt must be re-examined, land must and will be released from the Green Belt where it falls within the definition of Grey Belt, or at least identified as being Grey Belt, and the current Local Plan level and distribution of development needs to be reassessed in the context of that land release, resulting in increased levels of housing land being allocated in the more sustainable northern areas of the Borough, and the burden on the more remote southern areas being eased.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 10696

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Burton Residents Association

I&O_11194
I write on behalf of the Burton Residents’ Association to make the following comments regarding the Local Planning Policy:   Regarding strategy for the selection of options to build new homes over the next 15 years, we would be strongly in favour of retention of the green belt (Option A). We have already seen the consequences of development on Green Belt land in the village of Burton and the disruption to the community and the destruction of the environment caused during and following the construction. It seems ironic that at the same time as natural habitats are being destroyed we are being encouraged to plant wild flowers. The planned expansion of housing around Neston, Little Neston and especially Ness will further increase the traffic levels using Neston Road and on through The Village in Burton to gain access to the A540 Chester High Road. The current road infrastructure is struggling to cope with the number of vehicles, especially going through The Village, where traffic has to navigate past parked cars.   We have noted significant increase in noise pollution since recent developments already and heavy traffic levels threatening the survival of the environment and structure of this village which contains many fragile, old buildings built directly on to the sandstone. Its designation as a conservation area within the green belt should be respected.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10700

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Weedall

I&O_11198


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10701

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jackie Charlton

I&O_11199
In response to question SS 11, I support the retention of the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10703

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Derryn Jones

I&O_11201
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: 10704

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beth McDonald

I&O_11202
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: 10717

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roberts Bakery

Agent: SATPLAN Ltd

I&O_11215
In relation to the Site at Roberts Bakery, all spatial options include the refurbishment and redevelopment of sites in existing employment areas and retaining key employment including Gadbrook Park. Gadbrook Park is 56ha in size and a strategic location on the edge of Northwich. Roberts Bakery occupies a prominent position at the entrance to the business park (general industrial use), the remainder of the business park is primarily offices. The business park includes an undeveloped employment land allocation, and there is currently a relatively high proportion of vacant premises Retaining employment uses within Gladbrook Park is welcomed, however, this must be considered alongside the introduction of alternative uses to continue to ensure there remains viable for employment uses. The Local Plan seeks to maintain a supply of high-quality employment sites alongside housing growth. Gadbrook Park’s role ensures that Northwich retains a strong economic base. This can be further enhanced through reviewing the parks ability to  realistically delver future employment land needed alongside its potential redevelopment to align with the objective of maximising existing sites before allocating sites for development within greenfield and green belt land. Paragraph 8.5 of the consultation document outlines how the approach to the level of development will depend on the chosen spatial strategy option but will also seek to maximise housing and other development on previously developed land. The Site offers a large proportion of previously developed land which is within close proximity to Northwich. The Site represents a sustainable housing and employment area if the existing uses within the area are rationalised. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to prepare a comprehensive Masterplan for a mix of uses for this Site that could make a significant contribution towards meeting the wider aims and objectives of the emerging Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 10719

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Wayne Proudlove

I&O_11217
I am writing to answer Question SS 11 and that my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10721

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Durrant

I&O_11219


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10722

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Dennis

I&O_11220
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: 10724

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jenny Supple

I&O_11222
In relation to the green belt that involves the Donkey Sanctuary In response to Question SS 11 , I support the retention of the Green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10728

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona OMalley

I&O_11226
I  am writing to strongly object to the proposed planning permission to build on green belt land in Parkgate, Cheshire. I am answering question SS11 and my choice is to retain the Green belt land - Option A. Parkgate is a beautiful area and I am strongly opposed to the area being ruined by these plans and are keen to make the council and planners accountable for such decisions. Our tax payers money could be spent improving roads, schools, improving facilities - NOT ruining our beautiful countryside. I strongly object and wish to be informed of any consultation and further correspondence on this matter.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt