Comment

Representation ID: 12313

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Natalie Wilson

I&O_12827


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12314

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Williams

I&O_12828


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12316

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carolyn Hicks

I&O_12830
I am emailing my comments on the consultation as I am unable to comment through the portal (it doesn’t display correctly on phone or iPad) however I did attend the consultation event that was held in Winsford with the 3 options explained by CWAC reps. I favour option C over the other 2 options. Option A has an unacceptable impact on Winsford, it is unfair for Winsford to absorb 29% of the whole allocation of Cheshire West Option B would see the development of employment on the other side of town from the industrial estate and transport links All options are unpalatable in a town with limited facilities, full doctors, no nhs dentist, schools at capacity, poor shopping, lack of leisure facilities and entertainment and with only 1 route through the town on the A54 that is suitable for commercial vehicles, the town will be divided in 2 and the main road will become a bottleneck. The main attraction of Winsford is that it is surrounded by beautiful countryside and public footpaths but all 3 options will see the green space destroyed.  

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 12317

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Joanna Davies

NOR01
I&O_12831
Reasons for my objection to the housing development proposal and for the land to remain Green Belt: Transport Infrastructure - Barnton village has already suffered from the large-scale development of neighbouring Winnington Village.  As a result of this development, the current transport infrastructure is already under extreme pressure due to overpopulation and insufficient road networks to the main town of Northwich.  Particularly due to the single swing bridge providing access to and from the village which is already unable to handle the additional volumes of traffic.  The proposed development of 1700 houses would cripple the transport infrastructure and cause gridlock in Barnton village, Winnington Village and Northwich. Environmental Impact & Loss of Natural Features - The green belt land proposed for the development would irreversibly and profoundly negatively impact the existing landscape which has an abundance of natural woodlands, hedgerows, trees, ponds, wildlife and habitats (foxes, badgers, bats, owls, newts, woodpeckers etc).  It would result in a loss of natural habitats, destroy biodiversity, destroy natural features and increase air & noise pollution.   Urban Sprawling and Loss of Openness  - The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawling by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence !   The proposed development would encroach on beautiful open land and not adhere to this fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy. Visual Impact - the proposed area for development is visually beautiful, enjoyed by local residents (and those from surrounding areas) for walking, running and cycling.   This landscape is the backdrop to many existing properties, the building of 1700 new build houses will cause visual damage to the landscape - a prominent reason why many currently live there and visit the area.     Local amenities - Barnton Village is already under pressure from overpopulation, over-stretching access to existing amenities (doctors, dentist, schools, transport etc).  This will be compounded further by the proposed development.  The council & government should  only   be looking to develop on Brownfield sites and should be seeking these alternatives, otherwise what is the point in having a Green Belt policy. I and the local residents are strongly opposed to this proposal and I hope the council listens and recognises that this should not be approved and that Green Belt land should remain protected.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12321

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jake Pendleton

I&O_12835
I am just writing this email to inform you that I am choosing OPTION A - to retain the green belt in the Cheshire area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12323

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tanya Beattie

I&O_12837
Option A No building on the green belt. I live in Delamere, this is a rural area. We don’t need more houses - the development I live in still has lots of empty homes. The infrastructure won’t cope. The train service is appalling. I had to stop commuting by train due to its unreliability. The crossroads at Abbey Arns/Station Road/Chester Road are already a death trap that you do nothing about. I oppose any further development in the green belt. Affordable housing in Chester and Northwich is what’s needed.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12324

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Williams

I&O_12838
Regarding decisions being made about future housing & development between Great Boughton and Littleton & Christleton. Can I please add my name to the choice of- Option A = Retain the green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12325

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Constable

NEP06
I&O_12839
Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to formally object to the above planning for residential development on designated Green Belt land around Ness and Little Neston.  My objection is based on two primary planning grounds: ⸻ Impact on Road Infrastructure and Safety The proposed development would increase traffic through surrounding rural roads. These routes are already narrow, with limited capacity and no pedestrian walkways. Mill Lane and Damhead Lane are already dangerous roads with frequent collisions and near misses. Just last week there was a collision outside our house.   An influx of additional vehicles will:      Create congestion at peak times       Increase road safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and school children who already use these routes.      Add pressure to limited parking and access in the village centre. Loss of Green Open Space and Biodiversity The site lies within designated Green Belt, which carries strong protection under the NPPF. The development would result in the permanent loss of open countryside that contributes to the rural character of our village and provides important separation between settlements. In addition, the land supports a diverse range of wildlife, including bats, birds of prey, owls and hedgehogs. Development would fragment habitats, destroy hedgerows and trees, and reduce biodiversity at a time when councils are expected to enhance, not diminish, natural capital.   The proposal therefore conflicts with national and local planning policies that require the safeguarding of Green Belt and the protection of biodiversity and open space. ⸻ Conclusion   For the reasons outlined above, I have concern over plans for the NEP06 area housing developments and respectfully request that this plan be rethought. It represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would cause irreversible harm to the environment, and would place unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12326

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Banks

I&O_12840


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

Comment

Representation ID: 12328

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Smith

I&O_12842


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12330

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Griffiths

I&O_12844
I think we clearly need to sacrifice some greenbelt to ensure our children can buy homes locally. I live in Chester, I don’t want my daughter to have to buy a house in Windsford! Local people need local housing and protecting greenbelt at all costs is impractical, outdated and potentially isolating for families.  Anyone favouring option A has not been a first time buyer for a long time. Option B is my preferred or Option C to allow peoples family’s to remain local to each other and local to places of work. My daughter and her partner both work within 4 miles of home so a house in Windsford is not going to be very practical. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12332

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Whiteley

I&O_12846
As a resident of Cuddington in Cheshire I wish to provide the following feedback as a contribution to the CWaC Local Plan Issues & Options process. The county of Cheshire has a unique character and the Northwich area has been my home for approaching 40 years. In that time a great deal of urban and suburban growth has occurred, much of which has made more productive use of underused agricultural land and regenerated former commercial and industrial sites. I am a supporter of sensitive and proportionate development and feel passionately that this can be accommodated whilst retaining the essentially rural character of Cheshire. The Northwich and Winsford area offers a number of previously-developed brownfield site opportunities, both ex-industrial locations beyond the urban hubs, and ex-commercial, often close to or indeed within the town centres. Whilst such sites may admittedly present some challenges in their remediation and repurposing, in my opinion they must be considered as the first options for future development. The successful Winnington Village to the north of Northwich is a good example of this. With specific reference to the local plan being created for Cuddington & Sandiway, it is vital that any expansion of these small communities is proportionate, avoids further amalgamation of discrete settlements and thereby respects existing settlement boundaries, whilst also protecting the highly productive agricultural land which surrounds them. Retaining the boundaries of the villages of Cheshire is crucial in maintaining the character of the county and protecting their attractiveness as peaceful, enjoyable places to live. For this reason I feel very strongly that Cuddington & Sandiway should never be allowed to merge with adjacent villages such as Weaverham, and that Cuddington itself must not coalesce with the rural community of Delamere Park. Cuddington benefits from a railway station although those benefits are limited due to the relative infrequency of the train service and the very limited range of destinations offered (only Manchester and selected intermediate points to the east, and Chester and intermediate stations to the west). Cuddington's capacity as a Service Centre is therefore limited and any plans for expansion must include a realistic plan for a proportionate increase in rail capacity, range of destinations and car parking. The longstanding 'Green Belt' policy employed across the county, has delivered highly effective protection for the prized agricultural land with which Cheshire is synonymous, and avoided the merging of settlements due to ribbon development along communication routes. This highly successful policy must not be abandoned. For the above reasons my view of the Local Plan options for Cuddington and Sandiway is that Option A is the strong preference   If that, coupled with the exploitation of options elsewhere in the borough provides insufficient capacity, then Option B is the next best solution, as long as it ensures development is concentrated on the non-green belt areas of CUD01, CUD02 in the first instance , with CUD01 & CUD04 allocated for any essential, proportionate additional development. Such development must also address the limitations of rail connectivity, parking, retail options, education and healthcare facilities, fast broadband availability and the capacity of the already-heavily trafficked A49 between Weaverham and its junctions with the A556. Any development in CUD05 is highly undesirable and therefore to be avoided because it would involve the repurposing of productive and well-utilised agricultural land, as well as risking the coalescence of Cuddington with Delamere Park. Option C  is too wide-ranging, potentially fragmented and damaging to the rural nature of Cuddington & Sandiway and must therefore be avoided . I hope these deeply-held and sincere views will be taken into consideration as part of this undoubtedly long and challenging planning process.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12333

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Travis Wild

I&O_12847
I wish to protect our green belt and our countryside. Option A - Retain the Green Belt. It appears decisions are being made in a very UN-democratic way and I am appalled with the Labour Government and the CWCC council with regard to this issue. I wish this vote to be counted.

Comment

Representation ID: 12334

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Joe Nickson

I&O_12848


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12342

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Blackshaw

I&O_12858
Option A - Retain the Green Belt The Green Belt Land is what makes this area so beautiful & traditionally British.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12343

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Mills

I&O_12859
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12344

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emma O'Sullivan

I&O_12860
I choose option A - protect the greenbelt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12345

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Holt

I&O_12861
My choice is Option A to retain the Green Belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12349

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lianne Sweetman

I&O_12865
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: 12350

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Porter

I&O_12866
I vote option A to retain the green belt. My reason being that I already cannot get a registered place at my local dentist already and I want to retain all of the wild areas around where I live. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12351

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rosie Hay

I&O_12867
I would like to answer question SS 11 on the Local Plan by opting for Option B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 12352

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Worrall

I&O_12868
I am a Chester resident and I would only support option A retain the Green belt  CH2 , as I am very concerned about the protection of the green belt  around the Chester area and the impact of this was to disappear.   

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12355

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gaynor and Andrew Thompson

I&O_12871
With regard to the options presented, I strongly support Option A, which is to preserve the existing Green Belt land.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12357

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Glover

I&O_12873
We are answering question SS11 and our choice is Option B.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 12359

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Siobhan Fennell

I&O_12875
I am answering question SS11 in the consultation document. My choice is Option A to retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12360

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Hosker

I&O_12876
I support  Option A – Retain the Green Belt . This is the only option that protects communities, prevents urban sprawl, and supports the regeneration of existing urban areas.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12376

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Caldwell

I&O_12892
Why is this not an option for consideration for some settlements, no logic unless it is the railways stations

Comment

Representation ID: 12390

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Crone

SS 11
I&O_12907
Option A, Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12393

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Kaye

SS 11
I&O_12910
Option A-Retain the green belt.   I strongly object to any further building whatsoever on green belt  land in Weaverham and Northwich.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12406

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Teresa McNorton

SS 11
I&O_12923
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt