Comment

Representation ID: 12589

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Davies

SS 11
I&O_13106
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12598

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Marina Farey

I&O_13115
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: 12600

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Wells

SS 11
I&O_13117
As a resident of Anderton, with the options presented I strongly support Option A, which is to preserve the existing Green Belt land.  Reasons: protection of wildlife, infrastructure constraints, pressure on local services, additional industrial traffic.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12602

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sara Wakefield

I&O_13119
I am writing to express my views on the current planning consultation, in relation to Acton Bridge . My preferred option is Option A - retaining the Green Belt I have significant concerns about Option C in Acton Bridge, using transport corridors, and do not support this option for the following reasons the existence of a railway station in the village, considered as a transport corridor, is not consistent with the level of village amenities there are no shops, local primary school, doctors due to the size of the village which I envisage would still be the case in the event of new build - this would therefore encourage car usage, from a new development, to be able to access such facilities in Crowton/ Weaverham on a safety basis the width and bends in Hill Top Road do not support additional traffic on these roads near to the Hazel Pear, Parish Rooms and near the Cliff Road junction the railway bridge is a concern, already in need of reinforcement and repair, and the lack of disabled access to the station  fundamentally the large number of potential houses would change the character of the village current transport routes are limited - railway only links north/south (not to Manchester or Northwich) and few buses I appreciate that building a small number of houses would support the village, at the affordable housing level, but looking at single line housing to fill gaps rather than large estate housing which would have significant impact on the village

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12609

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Christina Basnett

I&O_13126
I vote option A to retain the green belt. My reason being I want to retain all of the wild areas around where I live. Cuddington is already at capacity with limited places at schools, doctors, dentists etc. It would also be a shame to ruin this area of outstanding beauty and destroy the local wildlife, open spaces and urbanising villages.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12615

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Varley

I&O_13132
Of the available options, Option A would be the least objectionable.

Comment

Representation ID: 12624

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Armour

I&O_13141
I write with a particular view regarding the development options for Cuddington and Sandiway. I would like to express my support for Option A - Retain the greenbelt for Cuddington and Sandiway .  Also, I would like to object strongly to Option C, especially as, despite the presence of a small railway station, there are very poor transport links here.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12626

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Winder

I&O_13143
I choose option A retain the green belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12644

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Walton

I&O_13161
In reply to the request for submissions concerning the CWAC Local Plan we wish to express our support for Option 1 as we believe the Green Belt areas within our Community should be retained and safeguarded. We also have concerns about the alternative options due to the increase in traffic they would cause on narrow, winding roads. This is particularly relevant regarding pedestrians and cyclists and has greater validity as there is no footpath between Delamere Park estate and the only local shops on Norley Road. The congestion on Norley Road when there are sporting events on the pitches already causes a dangerous situation for motorists due to cars parking on the road and the manner in which the speed bumps funnel traffic moving in opposing directions into each other. We are also concerned about the impact on local schools and medical practices unless additional resources are provided to accommodate the increase in pupils and patients. Option C is based on local transport links but when one considers the infrequent services provided from Cuddington Station and the limited destinations available these would need to be greatly improved in order to provide the service required by the increase in population. Similarly the sparse provision of bus services is not fit for purpose.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12645

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Thomas

I&O_13162
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: 12646

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Kenna

I&O_13163
As your documents are virtually impossible to fathom, lack coherence and allow a formal response to be submitted by your desired method, I hereby wish to submit my vote via email! I work for an LA, and this is not how you should be communicating in a consultation with your citizens, your arrangements act as a barrier for the majority to respond! Please record my response as: Option A to retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12647

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Haynes

I&O_13164
Firstly, of the proposal areas (C01-C05) I would strongly object to any of the Green Belt areas being used for any development, which would mean supporting the option ‘A’ proposal. The reasons for this are straightforward, the Green Belt land should be protected as much as possible and this clearly isn’t an exceptional circumstance as described in NPFF - there are sufficient non Green Belt areas in the proposal to accommodate the requirements.  More specifically, any Green Belt development in the proposal would cause substantial harm to the visual and spatial openness of the area within the Green Belt (particularly the C05 area which has no Previously Developed Land) - something the NPPF clearly defines as inappropriate development. I would like to be given the opportunity to expand on this if it should prove necessary.

Comment

Representation ID: 12649

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Diane Bradburne

I&O_13166
I wish to answer question SS 11 . I select  Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12650

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nichola Parry

I&O_13167


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12654

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Houghton

I&O_13171
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: 12657

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Rowlands

I&O_13174
I am deeply concerned about the scale and location of proposed housing developments, particularly given:  CWAC has already exceeded its housing delivery targets over the past 10 years; The loss of valuable green spaces and Green Belt land; The continued and cumulative strain on local infrastructure, particularly; Schools. Healthcare (overburdening the Countess of Chester Hospital and local GP surgeries), Transport; particularly road connection to and from the sites and green travel options. The further encroachments onto the green belt through urban sprawl, potential merging of distinct villages, undermining community identity; And the lack of a clearly defined, sustainable urban design framework for any new settlements. Over the last decade, CWAC has consistently exceeded its assessed housing needs, delivering well above its targets. Given this context, the justification for large-scale, further development appears unnecessary and unsustainable. The Local Plan must reflect the borough’s actual needs, not speculative demand, and should prioritise regeneration and brownfield development over greenfield expansion. However, in order to bear some influence over this planning consultation, I would select the least worst option which would be Option A – Protect the Greenbelt . 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12658

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Flanagan

I&O_13175


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12661

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Wilkes

I&O_13178
As a Resident of Cuddington and Sandiway, I would like you to consider Option A, retention of Greenbelt (options Cud02 Cud 03)

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12666

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephanie Bell

I&O_13183
I am writing to log my choice with regards to SS11 Option B.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 12668

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Murphy

I&O_13185
I feel the most appropriate spatial strategy for the council to follow is: 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: 12670

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Georgina Dutton

I&O_13187
Option A: Retain Green Belt. Cheshire West and Chester has a protected area in the north of the borough where development is restricted.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12671

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cathryn Hollingworth

I&O_13188
Regarding question SS11 I am completely in favour of option A - to retain the green belt. In a world where we are being encouraged to live more sustainably, surely we should be preserving our precious green belt areas, not destroying them.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12675

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Rossiter

I&O_13192
I wish to retain the Green Belt - Option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12676

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Keith Bell

I&O_13193
I wish to retain the Green Belt - Option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12678

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Hogarth

I&O_13195
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: 12680

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs C & R Hooper

I&O_13197
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: 12681

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Wilkinson

I&O_13198
� Option A – Retain the Green Belt i live in Barnton and the proposed development in North Barnton will put even more pressure on the already breaking infrastructure supporting the local area, you have already built thousands of homes close by in winnington all of which are using the winnnington bridge and barnton roads for transport. Please save the natural beauty of this lovely village I moved from winnington to enjoy the greenbelt in my area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12682

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Wilkinson

I&O_13199
� Option A – Retain the Green Belt i live in Barnton and the proposed development in North Barnton will put even more pressure on the already breaking infrastructure supporting the local area, you have already built thousands of homes close by in winnington all of which are using the winnnington bridge and barnton roads for transport. Please save the natural beauty of this lovely village I moved from winnington to enjoy the greenbelt in my area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12683

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elsa Price

I&O_13200
In answer to question SS 11 I'd like to submit a response for option A - retain the greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12684

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Chris Weeks

I&O_13201
In response to the consultation re. planning policy and building development,  I wish to state clearly that with reference to question SS11, it is my firm belief that the Green Belt should be retained. No building or new developments should be constructed on what is currently Green Belt land within the county of Cheshire West and Chester and this should be protected for future generations.  Our countryside is a precious resource and it is imperative that land which is currently undeveloped should remain that way. Our roads are already congested with far too much traffic and the pollution from these roads is horrendous; the environment is being laid waste by indiscriminate building and pollution is endemic; our water courses are ravaged and filthy with sewage, chemical spillage and the seepage from landfill and we even have microplastics in our drinking water.  If we allow the current Green Belt to be ‘developed’ this situation will only get worse and we shall have this on our conscience for many years to come.  I for one do not want to have to explain to my grandchildren why we allowed this to happen on our watch. We have reached tipping point and if we continue to build indiscriminately on agricultural land  then generations which are to follow will have their lives blighted as a result, and all for short-term gain and to satisfy the greed of unscrupulous ‘big business’ at the expense of the residents who are currently living in the more rural areas. People who have lived in this county’s villages and small towns for many years know these areas well and are also aware of the potential problems and the dangers presented by over-development in places that should be protected and preserved: they are aware of the delicate balance between nature and people and the importance of clean air, lack of pollution, pristine water courses and ensuring the safety of the people who live in these communities.  Far too often the wishes of the local population are ignored for the sake of achieving ’targets’ which have been imposed by people who know nothing about the inherent dangers and specific problems which indiscriminate building in these 'wildlife corridors' will bring about.  In our own village we are concerned that proposed housing developments around the outskirts will cause untold problems with regard to roads which were never meant to take that volume of traffic, the speed at which so many motorists want to travel, the damage caused to wildlife and the residents who have to endure constant noise, air pollution, danger to themselves, their children and other road users, not to mention pedestrians; gridlocks caused at such pinch points as bridges which were never meant to take so much traffic and lack of infrastructure (the provision of sufficient doctors and dentist’ surgeries, playgrounds and other green spaces etc etc) - all points which do not appear to have been considered by the people who plan such over-development and have no real concept of what specific problems there are in certain areas and how the safety and  quality of life of the residents will be affected detrimentally.  For instance, on our road (not even a B road but a country lane), should the proposed housing development of 96 dwellings on what was a farmhouse and small farmyard go ahead, the entrance/exit road from the housing estate will disgorge onto a really dangerous bend which in the winter has black ice forming on it and the steepness of the hill has caused many accidents in the past as motorists travelling far too quickly and not realising how steep the incline is which has resulted in drivers careering into the hedges and fences bordering the fields and hurtling onto the steep bank below, causing great damage to the cars and their occupants.  Should this development go ahead, the situation will become even more dangerous and even more accidents will occur.  It is factors such as this which are not taken into consideration that will inevitably result in accidents and exacerbate the situation further. It is imperative that any new housing or other building is restricted to ‘brownfield’ sites and not allowed to encroach on the protected Green Belt land which buffers small villages from the larger towns and provides wildlife corridors and helps protect our precious natural environment.    I trust that the wishes of the vast majority of Cheshire West and Chester residents will be taken into account, and the planning policy reflect this.  Local residents know the situation in their area and what damage will be caused if this knowledge and wisdom is ignored. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt