Comment

Representation ID: 12685

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Amy Irving

I&O_13202
I totally oppose the proposed applications to build on green belt land in the above areas and indeed all around Hartford. This is a lovely area with green belt land which is home to many and varied wildlife species. Not only that but adding further houses and their inevitable vehicles to already overcrowded roads and services which are extended to their maximum is completely wrong. Where are the supermarkets which these houses would use : in Northwich which is already overcrowded and difficult to get into. There has been extensive development in the Cheshire West area in recent years : surely limits have been hit and there is no requirement to ruin the area with more.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12686

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ellen Bowley

I&O_13203
In response to question SS 11, I support the retention of the green belt. It’s vital that we don’t lose this important land and put the current housing at further risk of flooding let alone the risk of excess traffic, congestion that new housing developments will also cause.   

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12699

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: C Harvey

I&O_13217


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12705

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gilly Carter

I&O_13223
I am emailing you in response to the new plan which Cheshire West is preparing to deal with up to 1900 new properties each year set by the Government.  I live in Cuddington and am deeply concerned with the number of properties that could potentially be built in our area.  In recent years we have had several new developments in our area.  Some of which are still having infrastructure problems.   There have been no extra amenities put in place.  Infact our local surgery was closed despite growing numbers.  I would like to register my objection to more building  in this area. This area is surrounded with green belt and is very beautiful and full of wildlife.  This should be protected for generations to come. If, however, it is decided that there is to be development, I ask that the green belt is protected and that the local infrastructure is improved considerably.  I feel this only leaves option A as a possibility. Thank you.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12714

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Parkin

I&O_13232
Option A - Retain the Green Belt. There are some well thought out and planned locations included in Option A - which allow significant development to meet housing needs while protecting the Green Belt, active habitats, active Farmland and the Cheshire Countryside. Smaller sites which add to the existing communities should be considered. Large scale development which wipes out the identify of towns, what makes them unique should not be considered or only considered when there is no further option. People move to villages, especially cheshire villages because of the sense of community, and the availability of Green space - by removing these or negatively changing them could see a decrease is existing residents. Small developments can fit into villages and towns, add to them and not stress existing services or transport facilities. Large development without adding services (medical, shops, schools, local parish council budget, community funds and more) and transport facilities will decrease the quality of life for existing and new residents. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12720

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Davison

I&O_13238
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding Weaverham village. (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12) In answer to question SS 11, I would like to choose Option A-  Retaining Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12722

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Wolfe

I&O_13240
For Question SS 11, my choice is Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12723

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Maxine Penney

I&O_13241


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12724

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Parker

I&O_13242
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses to the Cuddington area and east of Delamere Park my vote and objection would be as follows: My preferred option is Option A - to retain the area as is, promote the green belt land for agricultural and natural use. Ultimately we have to have a self sufficient food source in the UK. If building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would elect Option B - limiting the builds to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is NOT acceptable as there is no real transport corridor in this area. Only a weekly bus service on Delamere Park, hourly buses from Cuddington to Northwich, trains are only 1 per hour from Cuddington station and take 1hour and 7 minutes to get to Manchester, A and B roads are of poor quality currently. Adding more traffic would create more problems. There are no doctors in the area, our surgery was closed two years ago and we have to travel to Northwich or Weaverham. Employment is mainly rural, which will reduce if land is built on. I also strongly object to the very limited notice and time to express our views for something that would have such a negative impact on our lives.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12725

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Liddle

I&O_13243
My choice is Option A - to retain the green belt. I have tried and failed to log an objection regarding the planning proposal currently under review for the development of Lache Lane – Rough Hill. I am unable to navigate the complicated CWAC system and place my objection – this system is not user friendly. Please accept this email as an objection against the planned proposal based on the following: • Drainage problems and potential for flooding • Further traffic congestion – this is already problematic and there are no suggestions to improve the traffic infrastructure for the area and Chester • Serious issues regarding services and community. • Already had significant housing development on Wrexham Road, exceeding govt. targets

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12726

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rose Price

I&O_13244
n answer to Question SS 11, my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12730

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Gill

NOR1
I&O_13248
Retain greenbelt NOR1 OPTION A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12741

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Stuart Graves

I&O_13259


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12754

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Paterson

I&O_13272
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12763

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Bell

I&O_13281
I wish to officially lodge my answer to Question SS 11. My unequivocal choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt I have lived in Weaverham for over 50 years and its traffic saturation and crumbling infrastructure is already at breaking point. Any more housing, the associated traffic, strain on services and the loss of the greenbelt will have a serious detrimental impact to lives of the people in the village.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12764

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Kelly

I&O_13282
Of the three options I oppose two options which are B & C

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12765

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Kellett

I&O_13283
Option A to retain the Green Belt. The plan is outrageous.  We have just moved here from outside of the county and we moved here because of the beautiful countryside which you intend to take away.  Shame on you.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12767

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Grimshaw

I&O_13285
I wish to register my strong support for Option A – Retaining the Green Belt around Chester. The Green Belt serves a vital purpose in preventing urban sprawl, protecting the identity of Chester and surrounding villages, and safeguarding the countryside for future generations. It also provides essential environmental benefits, including carbon capture, biodiversity, and spaces for recreation and wellbeing. I do not support any “hybrid” approach that combines Option A with elements of other options. This would undermine the principle of Green Belt protection and open the door to unnecessary development on land that should remain safeguarded. Instead, I urge the Council to: • Undertake a comprehensive urban capacity study to identify and maximise the use of brownfield sites and opportunities for urban intensification, particularly in areas well served by public transport. • Reject the concept of “Grey Belt,” as every part of the existing Green Belt around Chester continues to serve a clear and valuable function. • Ensure that no sites within the Green Belt, such as CH02, are re-designated or earmarked for development. Chester and its surrounding communities deserve a Local Plan that prioritises sustainable development, protects the environment, and makes the best use of existing land. Retaining the Green Belt is essential to achieving that outcome.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12768

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Neville Liddle

I&O_13286
My choice is Option A - to retain the green belt.  Regarding the planning proposal currently under review for the development of Lache Lane – Rough Hill. Please accept this email as an objection against the planned proposal based on the following: • Drainage problems and potential for flooding • Further traffic congestion – this is already problematic and there are no suggestions to improve the traffic infrastructure for the area and Chester • Serious issues regarding services and community. • Already had significant housing development on Wrexham Road, exceeding govt. targets.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12769

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Basnett

I&O_13287
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.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12770

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Louisa Thompson

I&O_13288
I would like to register my vote for option A (retain the green belt) of the Local Plan.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12771

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rosie Mead

I&O_13289
I am choosing: Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12772

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Hirons

I&O_13290
It has come to my attention that there is a planned review of Green Belt land within the Cheshire West and Chester area for consideration of proposals for the building of new housing. I wish to state clearly in response to Question SS 11 that my choice is, Option A. - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12774

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Prydden

I&O_13292
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: 12776

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carree Acton

I&O_13294
As a local resident I am strongly supporting option A - retain the green belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12778

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Meredith

I&O_13296
I support the retention of the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12779

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Butler

I&O_13297
I am writing to express my very 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 GREENBELT. I cannot see why the Green Belt land is proposed to be selected over existing brown belt areas - that are already close to established transport links and equipped with sufficient amenities, therefore causing less disruption and impact to our environment and ecology. Significant alterations would be needed to existing roads which would cause huge problems to an area which is simply not designed to do so. There is already too much traffic.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12781

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Diana Coventry

SS 11
I&O_13299
My choice is Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12784

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Clark

I&O_13302
I wish to make my representation on Question SS 11 . My clear preference is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt. I strongly believe the Green Belt should remain protected. It provides vital environmental, recreational, and community benefits, and its preservation is essential for maintaining the character and sustainability of our local area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12788

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Dodd

NOR01
I&O_13306
I have reviewed the proposed housing expansion plan in the whole Northwich and wider area and would like to offer my opinion by way of answering question SS11. My strong preference would be Option A, which is to preserve the existing green belt area. My property backs onto fields which are thriving with nature. There are wildflowers, bees, and birds of prey amongst many other flora and fauna. Developing houses on this land would destroy habitats and would cause a decline in the mental health of residents of the area, many of whom (including myself) get a great deal of mental health benefits from observing and spending time in the surrounding nature. In addition to this, the infrastructure in the area is not suitable for the volume of traffic the proposed development would introduce. The collapse of Soot Hill in December 2021 is an example of this. The road closure caused widespread chaos for more than 18 months which saw Hough Lane become a short cut for residents of neighbouring Barnton, which is still used by many out of habit today. This has resulted in significant deterioration of a road surface which was never designed to accommodate the volume and type of traffic which it now does. Indeed, the road was scheduled to be closed for seven days from 18 th  August for improvement works to provide some resolve, but this has not been done without any communication as to why.  Neighbouring Winnington swing bridge is the main access route to Northwich town centre which again is an ageing asset which was not designed to take the volume of traffic it currently does. Adding in a significant number of new houses in the area would result in further damage and also put further pressure on other local services such as doctors and dentists. My fiancee and I have both suffered with illness in recent times, and the process of getting an initial appointment at our local doctors' surgery was quite frankly unacceptable due to the oversubscription in the local area caused by housing development in the past 10 years in neighbouring Winnington.  For the reasons outlined above, which I'm sure are echoed in other proposed development areas, I strongly believe that preservation of existing green belt areas is the best option for the planning policy. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt