Comment

Representation ID: 10878

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11376
Our client considers that a blend of options B and C will be most appropriate spatial strategy for the plan as a whole. Option A would simply result in disproportionate growth in Winsford and in the Middlewich hinterland, as well as pushing development into some of the more rural areas of the plan area. Compared to the current approach, a more dispersed approach of small and medium sized growth across a wider range of areas, including along transport corridors, might yield a more flexible and deliverable strategy. Option C has the benefit of maximizing the potential of some of the railway stations within the plan area – Acton Bridge being particularly relevant to our client’s site, only 1.5km along the local road network. This seems to be a sensible use of these high capacity transportation assets, many of which have been overlooked for the last 40 years within plan-making due to the presence of the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 10883

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karolina Packo

I&O_11381
  In answer to your question SS 11 I would like to choose option A - Retaining Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10884

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sheila Powell

I&O_11382
Regarding question SS11 I would advise you that I support Option A, retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10886

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Olroyd

I&O_11384
I am writing to provide my views on SS 11 planning application to which I strongly object.  Retaining the green belt is so important in these small towns and villages that do not have the infrastructure necessary to maintain the extra houses.  In addition these are areas of natural beauty that are slowly being eroded by excessive building. Please note my objections to these planning applications particularly around the Kelsall, Tarvin, Sandiway and Cuddington areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 10896

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Russell

I&O_11394
I have considered the options as a CW&C resident and I choose option C.as detailed below . Option C: Focus on Sustainable Transport Corridors Focus: Prioritise development in locations with good existing transport links, particularly along rail lines and frequent bus routes. I am aware that: Location of growth: Puts a greater emphasis on smaller settlements with rail stations, such as Hooton, Capenhurst, Helsby, and Frodsham I am aware that:. This option would require the release of Green Belt land for more than 12,000 homes. I am also aware that: Pros: Encourages sustainable travel and reduces reliance on private cars. Cons: Requires the highest level of Green Belt release among the three 

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 10909

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Richardson

I&O_11407
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding weaverham village (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12). I would like to make it clear and known that, after reviewing the proposals for the new houses, I firmly answer question SS 11 with option A - retain the greenbelt to question. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10913

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Hatfield

I&O_11411
I would like to express my views on the Local Plan proposals : I feel strongly that Option A Retain The Green Belt is by far the best option.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10915

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Rees

I&O_11413


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10939

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11437
Weaverham Parish Council Supports Option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 10979

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mayo Civil Engineering

Agent: Euan Kellie Property Solutions

I&O_11477
In terms of Policy Approach SS5 ‘Spatial Strategy options’ we consider Option A ‘Retain the Greenbelt’ is the best approach to accommodating new development whereby new development is located in line with the settlement hierarchy set out under policy approach SS4, in close proximity to existing services and facilities, and follows a plan-led approach which delivers the objectives set out in the Local Plan, and is not brought forward on a piecemeal approach which will not achieve sustainable development.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11059

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11557
In conclusion, Weaverham Parish Council supports option A retaining the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11063

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Kenny

SS 11
I&O_11561
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: 11071

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Francis

I&O_11569


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11072

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Evelyn Scott

I&O_11570


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11088

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Clifford Law

I&O_11586


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11089

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tata Chemicals Europe Limited

Agent: Axis

I&O_11587
Option C (sustainable transport corridors) is considered the most favourable of the three, however a balanced approach drawing on all three elements may be beneficial for Cheshire West and Chester. The retention of parts of the Green Belt remains important in preventing the merging of settlements and limiting unrestricted urban sprawl. However, a strategy focused solely on retaining the Green Belt would be overly restrictive and risks constraining necessary growth. Similarly, continuing with the current Local Plan’s level and distribution of development would not sufficiently account for population growth, evolving economic drivers, or the reduced availability of previously developed land compared with the circumstances under which the existing strategy was determined. Finally, while a strategy based on sustainable transport corridors is inherently positive, there could be an over-reliance on existing transport infrastructure which would risk underserving settlements and communities located away from these corridors. Furthermore, the policy approach does risk scenarios in which ribbon development ifs favoured along arterial routes, which can negatively impact on many of the rural assets that Cheshire benefits from. Consequently, any such approach would need to be supported by clear and defendable policy constraint. Accordingly, a hybrid approach is probably preferrable (one that safeguards the most sensitive areas of the Green Belt, allows for a rebalanced distribution of growth in response to changing needs, and ensures development is focused in areas with sustainable transport connections without excluding locations can be made suitable through investment in new or improved infrastructure and services).

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 11091

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Smith

I&O_11589


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11101

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paula Madej

I&O_11599


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11103

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Boulton

I&O_11601
I am answering question SS11 and my choice is : Option C - Transport corridors I am concerned about the level of development suggested for Winsford all options as we do not have the services or infrastructure to manage the level of development we are currently under now.  Getting a GP appointment is difficult you wait weeks for an appointment, there are no NHS dentists in the local area or even in nearby towns. Only one high school with children having to travel out of Winsford for secondary schooling.  

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 11108

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Gale

I&O_11606
I am writing to raise serious concerns re the above plan and proposed housing plans for the land between Green Lane and Rough Hill - map reference 5.4.  In response to question SS 11 - I support the retention of green belt land, due to the below concerns. This land regularly floods and this is shown on the Environment Agency website.  The Environment agency also recommends not building on flood plains - so this proposal will create so many additional problems for new home owners and pushes the problems wider to surrounding areas.  Lache Lane in heavy rain floods as does areas on Wrexham Road outside the new housing estate.  Part of the new Wrexham Road estate is also marked on the Environment Agency website as a flood risk (yet, the council approved planning for it) - how did they mitigate this risk? The new housing estate on Wrexham Road is causing the current problems:- There is no additional infrastructure with only 1.5 (very old) bridges into Chester for all these additional houses.  When one of these bridges is closed, it causes chaos and is also bad for the environment with all this standing traffic (including buses), let alone the impact on users (time and money etc. due to delays) It takes so long to get across Chester now including during non-peak hours, as no additional infrastructure was put into place - this will only get worse, that the 1.5 bridges will just be car parks (as will all the surrounding roads which at times resemble this). The medical and social care aspect is under enormous strain at present, and there is no plan for extra provision.  Accessing GP's including staffing/facilities, hospital services/staffing/facilities etc. have had no extra provision with all the additional housing around Chester over recent years.  Social Care - the council struggles to accommodate care at present - how will it cope with more houses - where is the plan? Whilst a primary school is planned - no mention of any additional secondary school places (seems to have been forgotten that after primary school children move to secondary school). Farm land needs preserving for food - the population is growing, hence this space also needs to be preserved.   The council needs to look at:- Utilising existing buildings e.g. city centre Un-occupied homes (I have continued to raise an empty home that the owner has not been seen for years, however, the council has no power to act as she obviously continues to pay relevant charges, but the house is in a state of disrepair and very unsightly impacting on the neighbourhood) and I am sure there are more.  Stop approving more hotels for Chester and use the space for housing (as there are so many hotels and more keep getting approved). Please listen, and address the above, before any further already approved building takes place.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11110

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bernice Law

SS 11
I&O_11608
In response to question SS 11 my view is OPTION A should prevail to RETAIN THE GREEN BELT

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11112

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bev Fraser

I&O_11610


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11114

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elise Fawkes

I&O_11612
In relation to question SS11 of the latest local plan consultation, i would like to express my support for Option B.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 11117

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharleen Landon

Barnton
I&O_11615
I believe that Option A for new housing development should be retained to protect greenbelt, to ensure that local infrastructure is not overloaded, and to protect the local area from increased flood risk, which building on greenfield sites will exacerbate.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11118

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Charlie Fawkes

SS 11
I&O_11616
In relation to question SS11 of the latest local plan consultation, I would like to express my support for option B.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 11120

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr C Cresswell

I&O_11618


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11121

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Fawkes

SS 11
I&O_11619
In relation to question SS11 of the latest local plan consultation, I would like to express my support for Option B.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 11122

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alfie Atmore

I&O_11620


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11123

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Jerram

I&O_11621


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11124

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Harriet Grainge

SS 11
I&O_11622
For Question SS11, I support Option B – Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development. This option offers a balanced approach, maintains existing protections for countryside and Green Belt, and avoids the disproportionate pressures that Options A and C would place on our parish.

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