Comment

Representation ID: 10732

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs S Wundke

I&O_11230
In response to Question SS 11 , I support the retention of the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10736

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Duffett

I&O_11234
I am writing to express my deep concerns over the plans to build on green belt land in this area. I am strongly opposed to the proposal.  I would also like to know why brown field land, such as that in Burton, formerly used by Burton Caravans is not used first and foremost before green belt is ever considered?  That land is a waste, it serves no current commercial or environmental purpose and the Chester High Road there is a dual carriageway with traffic lights already in place.  If we set a precedent of building on green belt countryside and farmland, where will that stop? We need to protect our countryside more not less.  Next, we will need more roads to accommodate the traffic, which is already a problem on the high road around Neston/Neston High school.  In answer to *Question SS 11* my choice is: *Option A – Retain the Green Belt*

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10737

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Watkins

I&O_11235
Having been made aware of the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate, I am writing to express my deep concerns over the plans. I am strongly opposed to the proposal.  In answer to *Question SS 11* my choice is: *Option A – Retain the Green Belt* 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10738

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Fraser Smith

I&O_11236
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: 10739

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs June Gleeson

I&O_11237
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 SS11 and my choice is - Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10740

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Dullaghan

I&O_11238


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10741

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Palmer

I&O_11239
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10742

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Astle

I&O_11240


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10743

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tom Barton

I&O_11241
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: 10744

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Davis

I&O_11242
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10745

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Mallaburn

I&O_11243
MERE BROW FARM, CHESHIRE - PLANNING OPTION A Hello, having studied the proposed plans for the development of land at the above location for housing, my choice in answer to Question SS is categorically Option A Keep the agreen Belt at all costs!

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10746

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Bullock

I&O_11244
I would like to see Option B adopted, as this results in fewer homes built in more rural village areas and more homes in larger urban areas, such as Chester and Ellesmere Port. I would also like to prevent any future development South of Chester Road, Cuddington, even if the current planning applications for these areas are refused. We must not split the village across a busy trunk road. Overall we do not have adequate infrastructure or services within our villages to accommodate even up to 500 further new homes (given two large estates have already been built in Cuddington & Sandiway in the last 15 years) so I would prefer to see far fewer than the ‘up to 500’ homes in my local village, Cuddington and Sandiway. The Council is responding to a directive from the government that new homes are required. However, the types of new homes that will probably be built are unlikely to match the types of homes that are actually required, such as affordable homes, smaller homes and bungalows. The Council should ensure that the types of homes that are built match the overall requirement, rather than the requirement of the housing developer, mainly to maximise their profits. I also have concerns about the impact on the environment, the natural world and green spaces surrounding our villages, that all this development will have. We are one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, which is quite shocking! My overall preference is for Option B as it seems equitable that the pain of development in this option is shared more equitably across the borough and mirrors the scale and size of the existing population centres.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 10751

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: S B Carter

I&O_11249
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: 10753

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jan Siwinski

I&O_11251
Answering questions SS 11, I choose option A, retain the Greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10756

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Hampson

I&O_11254
I write in relation to question SS11, specifically around building new homes and/or protecting the greenbelt.  I vote option A: protect the greenbelt.   

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10757

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Sullivan

I&O_11255
 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 SS11 and my choice is - OPTION A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10758

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Moores

I&O_11256
In response to the proposed planning policy, I am responding to Question SS11 and would like to state that my preferred choice is - Option A Retain the Green Belt in Neston. Neston relies on local farming and local wildlife, and eating into the any green belt will have a great impact on the sustainability of the local area. There are numerous other reasons why, including the local transport infrastructure already is inadequate.  Local bus routes are too few and we have an inadequate train network.  Placing more residents in the area will place an even greater reliance on the road infrastructure, and if the new residents moving in do not have private transportation they will become completely isolated.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10761

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Louise Harris

I&O_11259
I am answering question Ss11 and my choice is Option A, retain green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10768

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Samantha McIntyre

I&O_11266
I am writing to strongly oppose the planned mass development of houses on our local greenbelt in Parkgate and Neston (In particular our tiny town Parkgate). I am answering question SS 11 and my choice is; Option A- Retain the Greenbelt I believe the sheer amount of houses would have a detrimental effect on our local wildlife, and our very small infrastructure. We have a tiny school here, as a parent to two girls attending the primary school, I can tell you, their classes are already at full capacity. The Dr’s surgery is full, there is simply no room here.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10772

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Paul Savage

I&O_11270
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10775

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Hague

I&O_11273
Option A - Retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10779

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Twist

I&O_11277
my choice is option A - retain green belt land. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10782

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Brown

CUD01, CUD02, CUD03, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_11280
I am answering Question SS 11 and my choice is:  � Option A – Retain the Green Belt Reasons CUD01 Cuddington North - East of Warrington Road estimated total of 323 properties This will significantly effect the lovely walk that connects Moorlands Avenue to Smithy Lane and the atmosphere of Smithy Lane which is currently a quiet walk for families with dogs, runners to train on and a safe cycle route through to Warrington Road. CUD02 - Sandiway South - Dalefords Lane estimated total of 923 properties If this area does include plans for building on the old sand quarry area this will mean the loss of a really popular area for families to walk their dogs and to go sledging in the winter. Now that we have lost a significant part of Kennel Woods due to it being fenced off and used for storage of large plastic containers and the remains of the seasonal Xmas/Halloween displays (wooden structures etc) that just make the woodland feel very scruffy and not natural, the quarry is even more popular. CUD03 - Sandiway South - south of Chester Road estimated total of 187 properties (mixed use) The 2 A roads that border this area are already really very busy and Kennel Lane is a valuable asset as its a quiet local lane for families, cyclist and runners to gain access to the woods etc to walk and also to go through to the Whitegate Way. If this lane were to be used for any access then this would make it unsafe and the community would loose a valuable recreation facility. People cm from miles during covid to park and walk dogs etc. Also the junction of Kennel Lane with the A556 is a difficult one already and using it for housing access would be unsafe. CUD04 - Sandiway West - Forest Road estimated total of 1,335 properties Building in this area would significantly effect the 2 rights of way from Warrington Road to Waste Lane. These allow residents mindful access to Waste Lane/Whitegate Way etc. Also building on the area immediately adjacent to the Whitegate Way would significantly change the feel of the area and also effect wildlife. Its currently a haven from everything from buzzards to adders. Access would have to be on the busy A556 or the busy A49 creating even more delays and frustration for local traffic and commuters to Chester/North Wales/ Manchester/ Warrington/ Nantwich/ Whitchurch etc. CUD05 - Cuddington North - east of Delamere Park total of 1,198 properties Building in this area would ruin a beautiful part of our local cheshire countryside with its lovely quiet lanes, great footpaths and be a major loss to the stuff that makes Sandiway and Cuddington an attractive village. This includes the lovely walk from Waste Lane past the fishing lake to Mill Lane. Finally building all these houses and connecting the village to Delamere Park would completely change Sandiway and Cuddington from a rural village to a commuter centre. Combine this with all the developments around Hartford and Weaverham and eventually all 3 will effectively merge into one large commuter are. Currently there is clear demarcation between the 3 separate communities unlike other areas of Cheshire e.g. Willaston, Wistaton, Wistaton Green and Wollstanwood near Crewe.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10783

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11281
Option C is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester, as it allows for the delivery of housing and employment within strategic and accessible locations across the borough. Concentrating growth in these areas ensures new development is well connected to employment, education, and services, while reducing reliance on private cars and encouraging more sustainable patterns of movement. Hayfield Homes supports the approach outlined in Option C which suggests areas outside of Northwich could accommodate up to 500 homes and the development of greenfield land for employment expansion. In the case of development outside of Northwich, Land off Church Street represents a key opportunity, The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary of Higher Wincham, within a short distance to Northwich town centre and public transport connections. This strategic position means the site is highly accessible, supporting sustainable commuting patterns. Delivering housing along transport corridors not only reduces infrastructure costs but also helps create resilient communities with better access to services, in line with national policy. For these reasons, we fully support this vision and consider the Site an ideal example of how it can be delivered in practice. In summary, Option C is supported, or an alternative option which recognises that growth should be established through active consideration of selective release of Green Belt land where it is adjacent to existing development, offers strong sustainability credentials, and helps deliver wider residential goals. 

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 10784

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Holly Messham

I&O_11282
I am responding and answering question SS 11 and my choice is: Option A - Retain the Green Belt  I hope you take everyone's views seriously and I hope views are actually accounted for.    A local resident who is tired of green belt spaces being used to build houses in an area where the infrastructure, roads, car parks, community, GPs, schools cannot physically cope with more people.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10788

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Molly Tomlinson

I&O_11286
Answering Question SS 11 and that choice is: � Option A – Retain the Green Belt Eventually there will be no agricultural spaces or green spaces left and I find that absolutely disgraceful especially considering the areas that are being considered are already overpopulated and struggling. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10794

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gill Dale

I&O_11292
I vote for Option A retain the green belt. The infrastructure in Kelsall is not sufficient to allow a further 500 homes and would cause the whole fabric of the village to fail.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10797

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Tye

I&O_11295
option A - retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10808

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth and David Weston

I&O_11306
We write to strongly object to the reduction of green belt land and to confirm our vote for Option A - to retain the green belt. To do anything other than retain the green belt would be grossly irresponsible and inappropriate.  Eroding the green belt would create urban sprawl, increase annual flooding and flood risk, compromise spatial and visual openness, and be disastrous to the natural environment and wildlife.  Further, the country roads simply wouldn’t be able to cope with additional volumes of traffic.  The only people to benefit from the erosion of green belt are developers. We should be doing everything we can to protect our precious, vital, countryside. It’s time to insist that developers work harder with what is already available - regenerating areas and providing housing solutions that do not increase our carbon footprint, undermine biodiversity and destroy our beautiful, essential, irreplaceable, countryside.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10815

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paula and Chris Collier

I&O_11313
Option A...retain the greenbelt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt