Comment

Representation ID: 12413

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gwyneth Struthers

SS 11
I&O_12930
After consideration of the proposals we would like to respond to Question SS11, and submit our response as: Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12415

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Walsingham Planning

I&O_12932
We believe that Option A is the most appropriate, as it preserves the Green Belt, particularly around Chester and Ellesmere Port. In retaining the current Green Belt boundaries, the setting of Chester- a well known historic town can be preserved. Chester and Ellesmere Port are within relatively close proximity to each other, and the land between them is designated Green Belt, serving a key purpose as identified by NPPF paragraph 143(b) - preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12422

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Craney

I&O_12939
My answer to question SS11 is OPTION A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12425

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jill Doyle

I&O_12942
As a resident of Sandiway/Cuddington for 35 years I strongly object to the proposals to build up to 1500 houses. The village cannot sustain that number of new properties.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12427

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gail Caldwell

I&O_12944
I have lived very happily in  Meadow Bank Kelsall for 30 years. I am answering question SS11; my choice is Option A — retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12432

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Barbara Rogers

I&O_12949
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: 12434

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms J Williams and H Dickinson

Agent: NSC Planning Ltd

MOU02
I&O_12951
This site comes under Option C, MOU2. This is due to the existing excellent transport links and corridors. Option A – Retain the Green Belt There is a large amount of allocated Green Belt across Cheshire West and Chester Council, however with the new targets in place to deliver housing it may be necessary for some small parcels of Green Belt sites to come forward for housing, where they do not affect negatively the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. The Green Belt severs the unitary area into two, and therefore this option would mean that growth is only dealt with within the southern areas of Cheshire West and Chester Council. There would be no development in the north. We consider it would be more appropriate for more organic growth of other settlements. We therefore do not support this option. Option B – Follow Current Local Plan Distribution This could lead to several towns and villages expending which we do not feel is a necessary approach. Some towns and villages have much better transport links and connections than others, as well as services and amenities, all these factors should be taken into consideration when looking to allocate housing sites. Option C – Focus on Sustainable Transport Corridors We strongly believe from a planning perspective, taking account of the key emphasis in the NPPF on sustainability development, that Option 3 is the most appropriate. NPPF Paragraph 77 states: The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes).. Criteria D and E are most relevant to MOU2 and state Council’s should: d) make a realistic assessment of likely rates of delivery, given the lead-in times for large scale sites, and identify opportunities for supporting rapid implementation (such as through joint ventures or locally-led development corporations; and e) consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining new developments of significant size. To proposed development on this site would simply round off the existing residential streets to the north, east and west. Strong development interest has already been identified and a scheme of housing subject to the relevant planning permissions could be achieved without delay. MOU2 is stated within a Green Belt site with strong public transport links as well as access to services and amenities. There is a direct link to Chester and beyond via the train station a very short distance form the site. This is expanded upon in our sustainability assessment in Chapter 5. The government emphasise that new communities must be designed in a way that encourages people to stay socially connected, with easy access to work and school and key amenities like the GP and local shops. Reliable, affordable, and well-connected transport options improve life satisfaction and reduce stress. Promoting alternatives to car travel can help tackle air pollution and reduce harmful emissions linked to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases (Health Foundation, 2021).

Comment

Representation ID: 12436

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Flanagan

I&O_12953
My answer for the the Question Ss 11 is Option A - retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12438

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jessica Stewart

SS 11
I&O_12955
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. My choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12439

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Maggie Bishop

I&O_12956
I wish to put forward my objection for any building of houses on the green belt areas that surround Delamere Park (option A ). Delamere Park is a unique and beautiful area within the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12456

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carden Group

I&O_12973


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

Comment

Representation ID: 12465

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Edwardson

I&O_12982
I am answering Question SS 11 Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12473

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bishop

I&O_12990
I am against any housing development that borders or is close to Delamere Park.  Option A  put forward retains the green belt that Delamere Park is built on which is key to the whole area. The park is a unique, beautiful area which sits within the green belt. There are (thankfully) no shops or pathways and very few outside influences on the park which has been the mainstay over the past 40 years we have been here.  I hope there is a way to expand existing areas under Option B or C to use the current transport hubs and infrastructure, keeping the countryside Cheshire has,  to achieve the necessary housing. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12478

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vicky and Michael Mainwaring

I&O_12995
- 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: 12483

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Christ

I&O_13000
In answer to question SS 11, I would like choose Option A- Retaining Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12485

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Jenkins

I&O_13002
Please note, I am answering question SS11,and my answer is option A, retain the green belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12489

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Juliet Halstead

I&O_13006


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12493

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs C Watkin

I&O_13010
Option A: Retain the Green Belt • Development would avoid Green Belt land and focus growth on areas outside it, such as large-scale expansion south of Northwich, significant urban extensions to the south and west of Winsford, and around towns like Tarporley, Tattenhall, Malpas, and Farndon.   Releasing Green Belt land around Barnton risks undermining national and local policy aims, adversely affecting the environment, landscape, community wellbeing, and the sustainable development of Cheshire West and Chester

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12497

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Hilton

I&O_13014
We are sad to see so much development being proposed in and around the quiet village of Cuddington. Appreciating that housing is needed, in order to maintain the outstanding countryside we have here, option A is the only option which is preferable. We need to maintain the green belt, protecting the countryside, wildlife, farming way of life. It's what makes Cheshire, Cheshire and if we over develop these areas it will ruin it for generations to come.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12498

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne Leigh

I&O_13015
 Option A – Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12500

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Taberner

I&O_13017
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. [reference to comments I&O_13016,13018-13020] For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed allocation of Green Belt land for housing development. The Council should reject such proposals and instead pursue sustainable growth through brownfield regeneration and urban capacity studies, fully in line with the NPPF and the principles of Option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12504

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Hilton

I&O_13021
We are sad to see so much development being proposed in and around the quiet village of Cuddington. Appreciating that housing is needed, in order to maintain the outstanding countryside we have here, option A is the only option which is preferable. We need to maintain the green belt, protecting the countryside, wildlife, farming way of life. It's what makes Cheshire, Cheshire and if we over develop these areas it will ruin it for generations to come.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12505

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Benjamin J Taberner

I&O_13022
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. [reference to comments I&O_13016,13018-13020] For these reasons, I strongly object to the proposed allocation of Green Belt land for housing development. The Council should reject such proposals and instead pursue sustainable growth through brownfield regeneration and urban capacity studies, fully in line with the NPPF and the principles of Option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12510

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joy Wonderley

I&O_13027
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: 12511

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jacob Adams

I&O_13028
I am emailing to share my opinion on the  housing estate plans, I feel very passionate towards the green belts, it make so much of cheshire a wonderful place, I don't think it should even be a viable option to build on. If properties start being built and sold off there is no returning. You can't build anymore land. You can't get produce from a housing estate and the idyllic fields become brick homes.  I understand the need for property and the pressure from the government, but surely building in and around towns, that have the infrastructures like train stations, schools shops main roads,  is a better option.  Therefore, I would vote for option A: retain the green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12512

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lauren Prince

I&O_13029
I am writing to ensure my voice is heard in the debate on whether or not to build on the green belt in our area. I have reviewed the information and wish to make it clear that: In regards to Question SS 11: My choice is: Option A - Retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12513

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe McPaul

I&O_13030
I choose Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12514

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jennie Eaves

I&O_13031
In response to question SS11, I choose Option A / retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12515

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steven Swann

I&O_13032
I would like to confirm Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12516

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Yardley

I&O_13033
Option A - Retain the Green Belt I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposal to build on green belt land in Weaverham, CWAC and anywhere else in the UK. There is plenty of brown sites and old factory site (Wallerscote and Winnington), decommissioned power stations (Fiddlers Ferry), city and major town areas which should be exhausted before green belt land is considered for development. Once it gone it’s gone forever. The existing facilities and infrastructure in Weaverham and surrounding area are ill equipped to accommodate the additional influx of people and will require significant investment before any expansion is considered. Regarding the environmental impact of building on green belt land will be significant. Essentially turning Weaverham village into an urban sprawl bereft of open green fields, wildlife and trees. Not much of a legacy for future generations.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt