Comment

Representation ID: 1461

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Sara Summers Muir

I&O_1566
I do not support any of the proposed spatial strategies. If compelled to choose, I reluctantly prefer Option A (Retain the Green Belt) as it is least harmful to the borough’s Green Belt and rural character.

Comment

Representation ID: 1499

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Clough

I&O_1607
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 1510

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Glover

I&O_1618
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C).

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 1536

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Matt Aubrey

I&O_1644
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C).

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 1562

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Carolyn Spotswood

I&O_1670
I am writing in response to the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan – Issues & Options Consultation (Regulation 18) and wish to object to the inclusion of Acton Bridge, particularly land around Station Road, as a potential development location under Option C. Green Belt Status The land around Station Road lies within the designated Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and not simply to meet housing targets. There is no clear evidence of exceptional circumstances in this case, and Option C’s focus on rural rail-connected villages does not justify breaching this long-standing policy protection. Past proposals for housing on Station Road have been rightly rejected based on harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and this principle remains just as valid today.  Unsustainable Location Acton Bridge is a small rural village with extremely limited infrastructure: The train station is infrequently served and is not on the correct line for many commuters working in local towns/cities such as Warrington and Manchester.  With no direct train to London, those workers required to commute to our capital city often resort to driving to Crewe to ensure they do not miss the connection due to the unreliability and infrequency of the trains passing through Acton Bridge. Bus services are infrequent and do not support commuting patterns. There are no shops, medical facilities, or schools within walking distance of the proposed sites. Road access to and from Station Road already suffers from speeding and visibility concerns, particularly at the train station bridge Encouraging development here contradicts the council’s own sustainability goals and will only increase car dependency.  Strain on Infrastructure Any housing development in Acton Bridge would place unjustified pressure on surrounding infrastructure in nearby villages and towns. Primary and secondary schools, GP surgeries, and essential services in the area are already at capacity. It is unsustainable and unfair to expect small rural communities to absorb additional growth without corresponding investment.  Character and Visual Harm Station Road is a peaceful, rural area whose visual character would be fundamentally changed by housing development. Any large-scale building would: Erode the rural landscape Introduce urbanisation into countryside surroundings Impact the wildlife corridor along the Weaver Valley This is not a logical location for growth, and development here would undermine the very qualities that make Acton Bridge a valued part of the borough’s rural identity.  Alternative Options Are More Appropriate I strongly support Option A, which proposes accommodating future growth through: Previously developed land Urban extensions to larger, better-connected towns like Northwich and Winsford Avoiding further Green Belt erosion and inappropriate village infill This is a more coherent, sustainable, and infrastructure-led strategy. Acton Bridge is currently a small farming village with less than 300 homes.  It is a quiet, simple, rural village with no facilities not even a local shop or school.  The public transport is so limited and unreliable that residents of the proposed 500 extra houses are likely to need to drive to the shops, schools and their workplaces.  This clearly negates the reason for selecting Acton Bridge in the first place, under option C.  I urge the council to: Remove Station Road, Acton Bridge from any future Local Plan allocation Reject Option C’s focus on rail-connected villages for major housing growth Prioritise sustainable development that protects rural and Green Belt areas  Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I trust that the views of local residents and the clear planning policy constraints in this area will be fully taken into account.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 1597

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Ruane

I&O_1707
I am writing in response to the Draft Local Plan consultation. I strongly support Option A — retaining the current Green Belt boundaries — and I object to the proposed development sites Nor 10, Nor 11, and Nor 12 around Weaverham. Protection of the Green Belt and Village Identity Weaverham has a distinctive character built over centuries, with its historic core, surrounding farmland, and clear separation from neighbouring settlements such as Northwich, Hartford, and Acton Bridge.  The Green Belt around the village plays a crucial role in: Preventing the merging of Weaverham with other settlements Maintaining its rural setting and identity Protecting the transition from built-up areas to open countryside Development on Nor 10–12 would erode this rural edge, blur the physical and visual separation between settlements, and permanently change the village’s landscape character. The current green fringe and open views — integral to Weaverham’s sense of place — would be replaced by housing estates. Such development risks: Coalescence with neighbouring communities, undermining the Green Belt’s purpose. Loss of historic setting , with open countryside giving way to urban sprawl. Weakened community cohesion , as large-scale edge-of-village developments often function as separate estates rather than integrated parts of village life. Once lost, the village’s distinct identity cannot be recovered. Environmental and Biodiversity Value These sites include open countryside, mature hedgerows, and wildlife habitats. They contribute to local biodiversity, carbon absorption, and climate resilience. Once developed, this land and its environmental value cannot be recovered.  Infrastructure Capacity Weaverham’s infrastructure is already under pressure. Roads, GP services, and school places are limited. Whilst current school capacity in Weaverham might be stable, the proposed development sites (Nor 10, 11, and 12) could risk future strains on local school places. Without evidence that nearby schools can sustainably absorb the influx of pupils, development could exacerbate pressure on education services over time, thereby risking future overcrowding. Development in Nor 10–12 would increase congestion, strain dental and healthcare provision (already unsatisfactory). Public transport is limited, which would increase reliance on cars and local traffic. Flood Risk and Climate Commitments Some of this land is vulnerable to surface water flooding. Replacing permeable ground with housing would increase runoff, heightening localised flood risk and conflicting with climate change mitigation objectives.  Planning Policy Compliance The National Planning Policy Framework requires that Green Belt boundaries be altered only in exceptional circumstances . There is insufficient evidence that such circumstances exist here. Housing needs should be met through brownfield redevelopment and infill, not the loss of high-value Green Belt. Any development should be small scale, of a size and proportion to the current population that could be more easily absorbed, not overwhelm.  Conclusion For these reasons, I urge the Council to adopt Option A and retain the current Green Belt boundaries. Sites Nor 10, Nor 11, and Nor 12 should be removed from the plan, as their development would cause lasting harm to Weaverham’s character, environment, and infrastructure, while contradicting national and local planning principles.  I hope you will take views of local residents, like myself, into account. I would like to be kept informed of progress with the plan.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 1608

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Crimes

FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03
I&O_1718
Kindly receive my comments submission with regard to the above mentioned with particular attention to Frodsham FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03. In response to the request for comments on the  proposal consultation I would like to submit the following:- The development of Frodsham in respect of it currently being a small market town and to then be increased by almost double the number of houses is unrealistic. Being resident in Frodsham I am particularly aware of the limited infrastructure to support further development. Not only this, but the access over the swing bridge seriously limits the movement of traffic. To allow development on green belt land is supposed to only be as a last resort and when other options have been developed to their full.  The suggested ‘Option B’ appears to take no cognisance of the fact that there is an abundance of land that could be developed prior to using green belt. With respect to Option A – Retain the Green Belt – the green belt has been said to only be developed as a last resort.  This is after other available land has been developed and the green belt kept as a clean area that acts as a sponge for rain and a clean air environment.  It is important for good health and all areas should have reasonable access to ‘green’ areas.  Whilst it would be nice to retain all the current green belt areas it is probably not a realistic option given that this would place all the required housing onto a limited portion of CWAC. Moving on to Option B – Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development – this plan was drawn up ten years ago after very careful consideration and input from the local community.  It was aired and commented on at the time and at that stage there were some areas identified as not suitable for development.  It appears that we are now being asked to go back re-do it all over again. The addition of large splashes of crayon on a map is not the answer to increasing the number of plots for development.  FRO01 and FRO02 have been suggested on the map provided as being suitable for development.  Both these areas are sensitive due to them being natural buffers to our ancient woodland situated at Hob Hey Wood.  This wood is home to four trees that are registered on the Ancient Tree Inventory which was set up by the Woodland Trust.  These registrations were placed in an effort to recognise the serious importance of this woodland and includes one that is over 200 years old and designated as a ‘veteran tree’. It would be sacrilege to allow surrounding green belt to be developed and thus cause an adverse effect on our precious woodland.  Looking at FRO03 there is potential for some housing but the increased traffic requiring access to the A56 from that area will require serious controls particularly when one considers that this is a very busy road.  This, in my view is the best of the three options although it would have to be significantly less that the areas indicated on the map. Looking at Option C – Sustainable transport corridors – we have to ask the question as to how sustainable are these corridors and how much consideration has been given to the existing overloaded roads within Frodsham.  There are accidents and problems on the M56 on a regular basis which leads to traffic going through Frodsham and causing massive gridlock resulting in delays and congestion on all the surrounding roads.  The M56 was built to take the pressure off Frodsham and act as a by-pass to alleviate the overloaded roads.  This has worked in some respect but on the other hand the growth in the size of vehicles and the volume of traffic has increased massively over the years. As a result, when there is a problem on the M56 then the sheer volume of traffic overloads the Frodsham roads to a dangerous level.  Transport by way of trains to and from Frodsham is not just a simple provision of more trains to various destinations; the majority of the passengers using said trains generally drive to the station and then require parking for the day.  The local bus service is being run as a call on demand and under-utilised because it is unreliable.

Comment

Representation ID: 1672

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Forshaw

I&O_1782
Option A is to leave the Greenbelt to the North of Chester as it is. If you tolerate this today, tomorrow there will be nothing left.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 1676

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Edmund Ranby

SS11
I&O_1786
Please retain the green belt as far as possible, to avoid ribbon development. I.e. Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 1726

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Gorsuch

I&O_1836
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 1785

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Byrne

I&O_1895
Option A - 100%

Comment

Representation ID: 1827

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: mary pownall

I&O_1937
Option A retain the green belt 

Comment

Representation ID: 1883

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Ashton Hayes Parish Council

I&O_1995
A

Comment

Representation ID: 1983

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

I&O_2099
The HBF does not consider that it is in a position to comment on which of these growth options is likely to be appropriate without full consideration of the land availability and suitability in each of these approaches. It may be that elements of each approach should be taken forward to garner as many of the positives from each approach, for example supporting the vitality of smaller settlements, but also supporting the development of land within or adjacent to the larger settlements where developments are likely to be sustainable. The HBF considers that an approach which does not include a level of Green Belt release is unlikely to be appropriate, this would be unlikely to meet the local housing needs across the Borough, and could lead to an unsustainable spatial strategy. The HBF considers that the Council should ensure that whichever spatial strategy option is chosen, it should ensure that an appropriate level of housing can be delivered and that it can meet the needs of all aspects of the housing market.

Comment

Representation ID: 2013

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Leanne Hatchell

SS 11
I&O_2131
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should retain the green belt boundary (Option A).

Comment

Representation ID: 2025

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: sarah Wearing

I&O_2144
Someone has informed me that there are proposals taking place with regard to building more houses within our local area of Upton, Chester. I would like to object to this for many reasons and retain the Green belt space which is Option A. The area of Upton is already very congested due to the Zoo on Long Lane and traffic leading to the Hospital. Also, a new area has already being built at Chester Zoo which causes  a lot more traffic which will also result in more pollution to the area. Demage Lane is already used as a cut through to the hospital and people do not follow the 20MPH speed limit. People also use this road to park for the Zoo when it is busy. More houses will also lead to more pressures on local services etc.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2033

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Butcher

I&O_2152
Please record my preference as option A to leave green belt at the North of Chester as it is.   The area is already subject to significant traffic volumes at certain times due to the Zoo & already congested A41. Building additional houses in this location would add to the pressure. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2040

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Aubrey

I&O_2159
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C).

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 2065

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: MCI Developments Ltd

I&O_2185
The NPPF (2024) contains national policy which will help with the selection of a spatial strategy for the emerging Local Plan. Paragraph 7 identifies achieving sustainable development as a purpose of the planning system. Paragraph 8 identifies economic, social and environmental objectives as the overarching objectives of the planning system to deliver sustainable development. Paragraph 11 explains the presumption in favour of sustainable development, and for plan-making means that plans should promote sustainable patterns of development, meet development needs, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, and mitigate and adapt for climate change. Paragraph 104 identifies the transport issues that should be addressed at plan-making stage and includes opportunities for sustainable modes of transport and taking into account environmental impacts of traffic. Paragraph 105 of the NPPF (2024) expects the planning system to actively manage patterns of growth to support transport objectives, and states in part that “Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health”. There is a clear link between the location of growth, access to sustainable modes of transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 2121

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2241
Community Impact Option C This proposal would increase Frodsham’s population by up to 50%, which: Is disproportionate to the existing settlement Risks fundamentally altering the character of a historic rural community Contravenes Cheshire West and Chester’s Local Plan (especially policies on sustainable development and community balance) as well as Frodsham Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan 2024 - 2030. No existing road infrastructure improvements are proposed to cope with the increased volume of vehicles. Access roads likely unsuitable for construction traffic and permanent increased flow. Lack of Infrastructure Capacity Local schools, GP surgeries, dentists and social services are already stretched. No evidence of funding or phased expansion plans to accommodate the sudden population spike. Risks creating an unsustainable development, contrary to NPPF objectives, especially:-  “a social objective – to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being” “an environmental objective – to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.”

Comment

Representation ID: 2154

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Brown

I&O_2274
I not support any of the three options (A, B or C).  Basically in all these options parts of the county get dumped with all the new housing and the rest of the county is left alone....this will put huge pressure on already struggling areas in terms of traffic, access to healthcare etc

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 2162

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Ashley Spotswood

I&O_2282
I am writing to formally raise my concerns regarding the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan – Issues & Options Consultation (Regulation 18), specifically regarding the proposed development at Station Road in Acton Bridge under Option C. Green Belt Protection The land surrounding Station Road is designated as Green Belt, and as per the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), alterations to Green Belt boundaries should only occur in exceptional circumstances, not merely to fulfill housing quotas. No convincing evidence of exceptional circumstances has been presented, and Option C's focus on rural, rail-connected villages does not justify infringing upon Green Belt protections. Previous housing proposals for Station Road were rejected due to the adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and this reasoning is still valid today. Location and Sustainability Concerns Acton Bridge is a small rural village with very limited infrastructure: The train station is infrequently served and is not on the correct line for many commuters working in local towns/cities such as Warrington and Manchester.  With no direct train to London, those workers required to commute to our capital city often resort to driving to Crewe to ensure they do not miss the connection due to the unreliability and infrequency of the trains passing through Acton Bridge. Bus services are sparse and not tailored to commuting needs. There are no shops, schools, or medical facilities within reasonable walking distance of the proposed development sites. The access roads to Station Road are narrow, with existing issues such as speeding and poor visibility, especially near the train station bridge The proposed development here conflicts with the council’s sustainability goals and would only exacerbate the area's car dependency. Impact on Local Infrastructure Developing housing in Acton Bridge would place unnecessary pressure on surrounding towns and villages that already face strained infrastructure. Local schools, healthcare services, and essential facilities are already at full capacity. It would be unfair and unsustainable to expect small, rural communities to absorb additional growth without adequate investment in infrastructure. Visual and Environmental Impact The area around Station Road is a peaceful rural setting, and any significant housing development would fundamentally alter its character. Such a development would: Diminish the rural landscape Introduce urbanisation into the countryside Disturb the wildlife corridor along the Weaver Valley This location is not suitable for large-scale development, and building here would diminish the unique rural charm of Acton Bridge, which contributes to the broader rural identity of the borough. More Appropriate Development Options I support Option A, which prioritises growth through: Reusing previously developed land Expanding urban areas like Northwich and Winsford, which are better connected Protecting Green Belt land and avoiding inappropriate infill in rural villages Option A represents a more sustainable and thoughtful approach to development that considers infrastructure capacity and environmental concerns. Acton Bridge is a small, rural village with fewer than 300 homes, offering limited facilities or public transport. Any development here, particularly the proposed 500 new homes, would result in increased car dependency, undermining the original rationale for selecting this location under Option C. I respectfully urge the council to: Remove Station Road in Acton Bridge from any future Local Plan allocations Reject the emphasis on rail-connected villages for large-scale housing development under Option C Focus on sustainable development that safeguards rural and Green Belt areas Thank you for considering my comments. I hope the council will take into account the concerns of local residents and the significant planning policy constraints affecting this area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2180

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question SS 11
I&O_2300
Option A - retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2216

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Stanley

I&O_2336
Option d - more affordable housing and employment is required in local areas. Option C alongside very limited and specific release of small areas of Grren Belt might be required. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2237

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: John Harding

I&O_2357
Sustainable Transport Corridors would be a good policy. It would ensure that development is focused in areas where there is good transport is key. The unitary authority must ensure that the current public transport and sustrainable transport infrastructure is massively improved as it has declined considerably in 15 years. For example, just over 10 years ago, there were over 70 buses that went to Moulton every day; there are now a dozen. The cycling infrastructure in Northwich is poor, not well maintained and doesn't correspond to LTN 1/20.  Sustainable transport corridors would be a great policy, but the council must ensure that they do follow through and put the infrastructure in place to support the developments. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2284

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Manning

I&O_2413
The best strategy for the residents of the county is Option A. However some PARTS or parts of PARTS of Option B and C may need to be implemented. I think developers are eyeing up all land options as available to them.

Comment

Representation ID: 2329

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2458
option A – retain the green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2404

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Jack Hubert Mayhew

I&O_2533
Option c

Comment

Representation ID: 2443

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2572
All three are relevant and each one needs to be weighed against the other criteria.

Comment

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Shakeshaft

I&O_2698
Having looked at the three options, option 1 is the worst as it disproportionately affects Winsford and Northwich, compared the rest of Cheshire West. Option 3 is the least worst option following sustainable transport links. It also disperses the development of new homes more fairly across Cheshire West, than options 1 or 2.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors