Comment

Representation ID: 12249

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gill and Peter Payne

I&O_12763
For the "spatial strategy options" I support "Option A - Retain the Green belt".  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12250

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Yvonne Cooper

I&O_12764
Of these, I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt, because it protects rural character greatly appreciated by walkers, cyclists, (The Sandstone Trail), and why people have chosen to live here.  It is safe and secure, away from noise pollution, air pollution and an area of low crime. Property prices are reflected in this and it is more expensive to live in this area and therefore may not suit rehousing of people from a city or urban areas who are used to a lot of facilities being on hand and where you need to run a car. At present the bus service is 1 bus a week to 1 destination.  It would totally change the area and bring in people who may not be able to cope without shops, doctors, transport links, where the nearest hospital is 16 miles away. I do not support Option B or C because it risks overdevelopment in sensitive areas, increases car dependency and lacks supporting services.

Comment

Representation ID: 12252

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Brooks

I&O_12766


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12253

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Deborah Quayle

I&O_12767
I’m writing in regards to question SS11 and my answer is A- Retain the green belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12255

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cliff Roberts

SS 11
I&O_12769
I support the retention of the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12257

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Benson

I&O_12771
I am writing to formally object to the proposed plans to build approximately 1,700 houses on Green Belt land adjacent to Barnton village. This large-scale development would have a profoundly negative impact on the surrounding countryside and wildlife, permanently altering the character of the area. Barnton is already facing pressures from overpopulation, and the current infrastructure—particularly the single bridge providing access to and from the village—is not equipped to handle the additional strain that such a development would create. For these reasons, I strongly support  Option A – Retain the Green Belt , and urge you to reject any proposals that would allow for this significant and irreversible development. Thank you for considering my views.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12259

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gary Rogers

I&O_12773
I would like to select Option A- Retain the Green Belt I do not agree with Option B I do not agree with Option C

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12263

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Louise Stonley

I&O_12777
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: 12264

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Lucas

I&O_12778
I would like to vote for option A (retain the green belt) in response to SS 11.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12265

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janine Ellams

I&O_12779
I am writing to you in response to your consultation on whether Greenbelt land in the Frodsham and Helsby area should be used to build the Government’s quota for housing.  My response: Question SS11 -  Answer A - Retain the Greenbelt.   

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12266

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Serena Cowell

I&O_12780


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12268

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ann and Peter Stewart

I&O_12782
Our preference is option 1 retain green belt land.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12270

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Barritt

I&O_12784


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12275

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pippa Gomm

I&O_12789
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: 12276

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Ball

I&O_12790
I am writing in response to the Local Plan consultation regarding proposed housing expansion across the Northwich area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12277

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Egan

I&O_12791
My Answer to Question SS11 Option A Retain the Green Belt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12280

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Plumpton

CUD05
I&O_12794
Please accept this email as my strong objection to building on Greenbelt land in Cuddington  especially area CUD 05. I wish to retain the Greenbelt areas.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12281

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janice Reece

I&O_12795
I would like 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: 12283

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stuart Clarke

I&O_12797
question SS 11 . Answer A  Protect our geenbelt and way of life.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Support

Representation ID: 12285

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Plumpton

CUD05
I&O_12799
Please accept this email as my strong objection to building on Greenbelt land in Cuddington  especially area CUD 05. I wish to retain the Greenbelt areas.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12286

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Briggs

I&O_12800
I would like to respond to  recent recieved revealing plans to build hundreds of houses on green belt land. This is in direct response to question SS 11 and the choice option A. I live directly opposite the proposed housing plans and have several objections; * Guilden Sutton Lane on which these houses would be built off is already an extremely fast and busy road. It is used frequently as a cut through to and from the A51. There are certain times of the day when the traffic is excessive and can cause a grid lock throughout the whole village. As well as the increased pollution this causes on the local environment it would also have a hugely negative impact on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and existing home owners. * The facilities in the village as it stands are limited, this includes play spaces, amenities , places at the local school and drainage systems. The current infrastructure would not support such a large scale development.  * Green spaces- green space this close to a city centre are rare and precious. Many villagers including myself moved to guilden suttton because of it's quiet and natural environment. The land in question is used on a daily basis by many members of the community as a place of well being and a chance to bring our children up around nature. With the plans as they currently stand the new housing development would cause a huge dent in thriving  local wild life and would be severely detrimental to the well being of existing residents.  In closing I would also like to take the opportunity to express my disappointment in the lack of information regarding these plans. No information has been sent to myself as a direct local resident and the only information that appears to have been shared is one well hidden sign attached to a tree in the undergrowth. This doesn't instill faith in the honesty of the Council/local authority and i am extremely disappointed.  Please forward my objections to the relevant parties.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12287

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Miles

I&O_12801


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12289

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pete Barritt

I&O_12803


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12296

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Kenworthy

I&O_12810


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12298

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Charles Poole

I&O_12812
In answer to question SS 11 I think we should choose OPTION A, I.e. retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12299

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kevin Duncalf

I&O_12813
Question SS11 Option A Retain green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12300

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Poole

I&O_12814


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12304

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Hartwell

I&O_12818


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12311

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Williams

I&O_12825


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12312

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Marcia & Cliff Garnett

I&O_12826
In response to the SS11 question I find option A to retain the green belt land the most appropriate option. I believe this is the best option as we don’t have the infrastructure for additional houses.  Our GPs are already struggling and patients have to endure long waits when trying to access medical care.  The roads are already congested and the Winnington bridge is no longer fit for existing traffic let alone any additional traffic including the industrial traffic. Furthermore, I believe the proposal will cause significant harm to our wildlife and the environment.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt