Comment

Representation ID: 11125

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elise Fawkes

SS 11
I&O_11623
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: 11126

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Cooper

SS11
I&O_11624
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: 11131

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11629
Answer. -Retain Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11139

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Proctor

I&O_11637
I only support Option A -Retain the Green Belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11145

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Zazel Carew

I&O_11643
Option A – Retain the Green Belt I strongly support Option A – Retain the Green Belt , as it offers the most environmentally sustainable and socially responsible approach. The Green Belt is not just an abstract planning concept, it is a living, functional space that contributes directly to: Environmental Protection: It supports biodiversity and ecosystem health, especially in areas like Chester where recent efforts have significantly improved habitats and green corridors. Community Identity and Character: Chester’s surrounding landscape is integral to its charm and heritage. Green Belt loss would erode this and replace it with uniform development. Sustainable Growth: Future development should prioritise the re-use of brownfield sites and urban regeneration over consuming irreplaceable greenfield land. Health and Wellbeing: Protected green spaces promote physical activity, mental health, and community cohesion—especially important in both rural and urban fringes. Retaining the Green Belt protects these values and supports the aims of current and future environmental strategies at both local and national levels.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11147

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola Carvell

I&O_11645
With regards to the proposed additional homes in Kelsall 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: 11148

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Horne

I&O_11646
my option is A retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11149

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Maria Petrauskas

I&O_11647
I object to any houses being built in kelsall.  In answer to question ss11 my choice is to retain green belt land. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11150

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Very Rev'd Protopresbyter Pancratios Sanders

I&O_11648
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11160

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Satnam Investments Ltd

Agent: Satnam Planning Services Limited

I&O_11658
Option A comments: This option is reliant on the significant expansion of existing settlements outside of the Green Belt to meet the Council's identified housing needs. It fails to identify any potential housing growth areas in the most sustainable settlements higher up on the Council's settlement hierarchy, particularly the City of Chester and Ellesmere Port, a main Satnam has very serious concerns that this option will create considerable infrastructure pressures on a small number of settlements, particularly Northwich and Winsford, alongside a handful of villages where existing facilities and services are relatively limited. The option is likely to result in less sustainable sites coming forward within the existing settlement limits to avoid releasing land within the Green Belt, but on the edge of much more sustainable settlements in the Borough, most notably Chester. The possible policy approach outlined at SS 5 references the findings of the Inspector's Report into the LPPl to seek to justify the retention of Green Belt land around the edges of Chester. The significant increase in the Council's housing requirement since the Examination of LPPl in 2014 has materially changed the context in which the Inspector's findings were made. These findings, which are now out-of-date, can no longer provide the necessary justification for preventing Green Belt release around The scale of growth required to meet the Borough's housing needs is so substantial that it is considered unrealistic that it can be accommodated within the Borough without any Green Belt release. The NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified [§145). Exceptional circumstances include where an authority cannot meet its identified need for homes [§146). If this is the case, the NPPF sets out a sequential approach to the release of Green Belt land, giving priority to previously developed land, then grey belt land which is not previously developed, and then other Green Belt locations [§148). We strongly consider that Option A, proposing no Green Belt release, will prevent the Council from meeting its housing needs in This is an unsound strategy. In accordance with the NPPF, exceptional circumstances therefore exist to allow the Council to review and amend its Green Belt boundaries through the Local Plan process. Additionally, not only should CWaC be seeking to maximise development in the emerging plan period, paragraph 145 of the NPPF requires any Green Belt boundaries to be amended so they can endure beyond this In accordance with national policy, CWaC must safeguard land for development that is capable of coming forward for housing beyond the plan cycle. Whilst the spatial strategy options claim to be able to accommodate a minimum of 29,000 homes, CWaC has failed to account for the development needs of the Borough beyond this plan period. CWaC should not only be accounting for needs within the emerging plan period, but also beyond the plan period to ensure Green Belt boundaries endure. We respectfully ask that the Council does not pursue this option further and instead takes a more proactive approach to meeting needs now, in and around the most sustainable settlements in the Borough. This will avoid a position where the Council cannot demonstrate a SYHLS going forward and reduce the risk of planning by appeal as speculative housing applications continue to come forward in the short It will also help to mitigate the need for the Council to release further land (particularly land within the Green Belt) in future local plan cycles.

Comment

Representation ID: 11161

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Satnam Investments Ltd

Agent: Satnam Planning Services Limited

I&O_11659
Option B and C comments: Both options propose the urban expansion of Chester, which we fully This is reflective of Chester's identification as the top tier settlement in the possible policy approach outlined at 55 4 (Settlement hierarchy) due to its status, scale and role in providing local infrastructure and services for its residents. We consider that housing growth should be concentrated in sustainable locations in and around the settlement boundary of Chester rather than directing development to smaller settlements that will more likely require significant infrastructure investment to support this scale of growth. Table 1 sets out the four potential growth areas identified around Chester, three of' which are identified solely for housing and one for mixed-use development, specifically: CH0l: Chester North - Upton Triangle (Mixed-use); CH02: Chester East - Piper's Ash (Housing); CH03: Chester South - Wrexham Road (Housing); and, CH04: Chester North - North of Blacon (Housing). Both land interests are identified as possible growth areas for residential development within Options B and C, with Daleside Nursery located in CH0l and Land at Hoole located in Going forward, we consider that CWaC should progress with a strategy (either of the two options or a combination of both) that involves the release of Green Belt land, particularly on the northern and eastern edges of Chester. Both sites are well placed adjacent to the strategic highway network, specifically the AS116 Liverpool Road and the A56 Warrington Road, that offer a number of bus stops adjacent to the The stops provide services into Chester city centre. A wide range of local services and facilities within the suburbs of Upton-by-Chester and Hoole are within walking distance. The sites are sustainable ones capable of meeting the development needs of the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 11222

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ella Magnuszewska

CUD01, CUD04, CUD05
I&O_11720
I believe it is vitally important to retain as many existing Green Belt areas as possible. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11241

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Worthington

I&O_11739
I strongly oppose the proposed large scale development of Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. This land is precious not just for preserving wildlife but for the future of our planet regarding climate change. The less natural environment there is to remove CO2 the more the planet will heat up. Presumably there are more brown field sites available that could be turned into affordable housing instead of disrupting precious green belt resources. I also have grave concerns about of our current local services ability to cope with a greater influx of residents.   Also finally the very limited ability of traffic to access and exit Neston and Parkgate which can result in gridlock for many periods at a time.   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: 11244

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Habiko LLP (c/o Muse)

Agent: Turley

I&O_11742
The growth options must align with the Council’s commitment to delivering the homes and employment land evidenced as needed, with this including the current identified 149 hectares of employment land, as outlined in the ENDA and at least 29,000 dwellings aligned with the outcome of the LHN. The Council has not currently provided evidence which affirms that each of the options can accommodate these levels of development, and this must be provided ahead of the identification of a spatial strategy to ensure it is realistically achievable. At this stage, Habiko does not deem it appropriate or feasible to determine which of the proposed spatial strategy options is most suitable, as further evidence is required to evidence the Council’s claim that all three options can meet the identified need. This includes detailed studies into the availability of land for development, infrastructure capacity, and the suitability of different areas to support the anticipated growth  Notwithstanding this where, as our response to Question SS 3 identifies, only around 2% of this employment land (4.3ha) relates to new office development, with the focus evidently being on the need for land to meet industrial requirements, the principle of focussing office development primarily on town centres or established business parks is generally supported. This is particularly the case where office development can be brought forward alongside other commercial uses, recognising that at the current time office rental values, even in the city centre, are far below the threshold that would allow for viable development to take place (Iceni Project 2025 Cheshire West and Chester Economic Development Needs Assessment, Final Report, paragraph 6.59). Regarding the provision of housing, Habiko will reserve comment on Option A given its land interest does not require the release of Green Belt. However, in general all of the options represent very strict choices, which do not reflect a considered approach to plan-making. In terms of option B, this would ultimately support Habiko’s proposition for the Site by directing growth to existing urban centres as per the defined settlement hierarchy (of which Chester sits at the top). These are the most sustainable settlements in the Borough and already benefit from a range of services and facilities to support residential populations. Whilst Habiko’s land interests at CBQ could be argued as one of the most sustainably located major development opportunities within the Borough with regards to public transport accessibility, in particular rail, public transport connection alone is not a definitive proxy for sustainability – consideration of a full range of services should also be taken into account. In reality however it is likely that the spatial strategy for the Borough will need to comprise a combination of all three options in order to achieve sustainable growth. 

Comment

Representation ID: 11247

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alan Shaw

I&O_11745
I believe it is vitally important to retain as many existing Green Belt areas as possible. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11261

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Samuel Leigh

I&O_11759
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11293

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11791
B although I would prefer A

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

Comment

Representation ID: 11315

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Carew

I&O_11813
Option A – Retain the Green Belt I strongly support Option A – Retain the Green Belt, as it offers the most environmentally sustainable and socially responsible approach.  The Green Belt is not just an abstract planning concept, it is a living, functional space that contributes directly to: Environmental Protection: It supports biodiversity and ecosystem health, especially in areas like Chester where recent efforts have significantly improved habitats and green corridors. Community Identity and Character: Chester’s surrounding landscape is integral to its charm and heritage. Green Belt loss would erode this and replace it with uniform development. Sustainable Growth: Future development should prioritise the re-use of brownfield sites and urban regeneration over consuming irreplaceable greenfield land. Health and Wellbeing: Protected green spaces promote physical activity, mental health, and community cohesion—especially important in both rural and urban fringes. Retaining the Green Belt protects these values and supports the aims of current and future environmental strategies at both local and national levels.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11386

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Poulton

I&O_11884
Concerning - “spatial strategy options” I wish to make it clear, I support “Option A - to retain the Green Belt” 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11393

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Hall

I&O_11891
Option A, retain the green belt. Acton Bridge is not a straightforward case for planning large scale housing developments based on the fact it has a small railway station.  The village is already used as a cut through rat-run by commuters using the A49, the roads within and surrounding the village are narrow and have limited footpaths, they are already hazardous for walkers and cyclists as there are numerous farm vehicles along with HGV's accessing agricultural facilities.  The rail station has wholly inadequate parking and access plus is place adjacent to a bridge, sharp bend and junction. To add significant volume to of traffic and people to this environment will need significant road infrastructure replacement with huge disruption for little benefit should housing developments be incepted where indicated on the draft plan.  To lose the current nature of the village, which is used by many as a place to visit walk and cycle removes a significant benefit to a wider community when there could be locations more suited to progressive development.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11400

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Taylor

I&O_11898
A, retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11434

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tony Bowerman

I&O_11932
In response to plans for new houses in Cheshire: I object strongly and say we should retain the county’s Green Belt. In particular: On Question SS 11 my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt To do otherwise will severely reduce the quality of life for all in Cheshire.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11448

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Bowle

I&O_11946
option A retain the Greenbelt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11470

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Eveleigh

I&O_11968
Option A – retain the green belt. The infrastructure in the area is already struggling, and there are “brownfield” sites available.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11471

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Baker

I&O_11969
I support the retention of the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11473

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Stephen Lockett

I&O_11971
Option A - retain the green belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11474

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Fegan

I&O_11972
I want to vote option A retain the green belt. I think there are plenty of options for building and it’s vitally important to not merge villages by building on green belt land. I also feel the A49 is busy enough without putting extra traffic onto it. Any incidents on the motorway and the A49 comes to a standstill in Cuddington. Eden Grange development is still flooding the A49 and that problem has been going on for years. Can the developers not sort the issues with the development they already have before moving the problems on.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11476

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah Wills

I&O_11974
I am writing to express my strong objection 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: 11482

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Patrick McKenna

I&O_11980
OPTION A RETAIN THE GREEN BELT

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 11511

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12009
Of the options presented we favour Option A - Retain the Green Belt. However, we have concerns even about this option due to its reliance on the flawed standard method for calculating housing need, and the resultant risk that further harmful development would occur in other important countryside areas which are not protected as Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt