Comment

Representation ID: 12790

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Lowe

I&O_13308
I would like to vote for local plan Option A, I would like to see the greenbelt protected.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12793

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Chadderton

I&O_13311
> 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: 12794

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Kirwin

I&O_13312
I am writing to comment on the proposal for 5000 new homes around Northwich. In response to question SS11 I strongly favour Option A (retain the greenbelt). The land to the North of Barnton, in particular is valuable agricultural land and supports a large number of native birds, invertebrates, amphibians and mammals including protected species; brown Hare, bats, red list bird species including whimbrel, lapwing, skylark, grasshopper warbler, greenfinch, linnet and yellowhammer. Many of the hedgerows contain ancient indicator plant species and mature trees. The loss of this greenbelt land would have a significant impact on the wildlife of Barnton and its surrounds.  In addition, 1700 new homes would put intolerable strain on the existing single lanes through and around the village and on the already over-stretched routes into Northwich i.e Soot Hill and Barnton Bridge. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12795

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Isabelle Nicol

I&O_13313
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: 12796

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kerry Littler

I&O_13314
My response to your planning consultation document to question SS 11 is Option A - Retain the green belt I live on Rake Lane, Chorlton by Backford and I have done so for the past 15 years, my partners family own the fisheries and have resided here since the 70s. We are shocked at the volume of traffic that consistently charges down our lane. A lane that isn’t fit for this purpose. Daily car crashes - the norm. How can you possibly suggest that building all those extra houses around this local area on precious green belt land? The area is already struggling as it is, volume of traffic, worsening roads, extremely dangerous roads, lack of schools, nhs services. Where are all these people going to go? What will the roads be like? Rake lane is a death trap. The amount of vehicles that crash or spin off is just unacceptable, up to 60 takers a week going to the fuel depot. Congestion at the junctions because the lane isn’t suitable for the heavy traffic. Yet this consultation is proposing more traffic around the area. I fear for my life and my child’s every time I get in my car and drive down it. The A41 at the top of Rake Lane is also a death trap due to the high volumes of traffic and speeding vehicles - yet build more houses and increase the traffic volume putting more lives at risk. The area is too small to cope with it. The whole consultation is a farce. Ruining the precious little green belt we have left and causing further danger to fair tax paying residents and owners. Absolutely disgusting! Time to start solving the current issues we are facing as residents not encouraging more.

Comment

Representation ID: 12800

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jackie Larty

SS 11
I&O_13318
I am writing in objection to the recent large scale housing development proposals on green belt land in the Neston and Parkgate area.  I am answering in regard to Question SS11 and my choice is Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12805

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Kevin and Karen Bryer

I&O_13323
Having seen the options for the housing section of the new Local Plan, we feel we must send in our thoughts regarding the 3 options which are provided. If one of the options has to be chosen and potential growth areas have to be identified, then we would propose Option A which retains the green belt. However we have strong objections to ANY more housing being built in Cuddington and Sandiway, extending beyond the existing boundaries. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12815

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rhiannon Thorning

I&O_13333
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.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12817

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Michael and Joanne Evennett

I&O_13335
As a local family residing in Parkgate, I am writing with regards to the Neston Local Plan Consultation and our strong opposition to the proposed large scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate.  We are answering question SS11 and our choice is: Option A - Retain the Green Belt.  Parkgate is an area of natural beauty, famed and celebrated for its marshland, for reaching views, countryside and wildlife. It would be wholly inappropriate, irresponsible and severely damaging to the above if green belt land was permitted to be built upon.  There is clearly not the facilities locally for a large scale development. The roads are not suitable for the increase in traffic. The local area of Parkgate is already very congested as it is a welcomed tourist spot and popular with day visitors, hikers and cyclists. There is insufficient doctors and schools for the additional people. The waste and sanitary infrastructure is not capable of dealign with the additional capacity. The protected marshland and wildlife would forever be compromised.  We are vehemently against this planning suggestion and are very concerned by such a thoughtless and damaging idea. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12822

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Ellis

I&O_13340
I am answering to object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43 in the consultation document.  My choice is to retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12830

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Crawford

I&O_13348
Our vote is for the proposal C. We are residents of Winsford and do not agree to all the housing proposed for Winsford or Northwich as in our opinion this would be too much of a strain on the already struggling infrastructure of these 2 towns.  There is no planning for any new schools  doctors, dentists, shops etc to serve all the proposed developments. We believe the area would be best supported by the plans that follow the transport corridor towards Chester so the people could be properly served and the effect on the use of Green Belt land would be less of a devastation on just one area.  

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 12835

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Wilde

I&O_13354


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12840

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Hampson

I&O_13359
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12846

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Maria Norbury

I&O_13365
I am writing to give my full support for the protection of our greenbelt. I am answering question SS11 and my choice is Option A = retain our greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12847

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michelle Gibson

Kelsall
I&O_13366
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12848

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Gibson

Kelsall
I&O_13367
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12859

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Francesca Russell

I&O_13378
my choice is option A retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12860

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lauren and Maurice Drax

NOR01 Barnton/Anderton
I&O_13379
I am emailing to register my objection to the proposed building of houses on the fields in Barnton/Anderton. 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

Comment

Representation ID: 12875

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Beswick

I&O_13394
Option A – retain the green belt is the most appropriate strategy. Green belts provide essential habitats for wildlife, supporting biodiversity and protecting endangered species, and act as natural flood defences by absorbing, storing, and slowly releasing rainwater. They also prevent urban sprawl, therefore protecting the character and distinctiveness of towns and villages. Once green belt is built on, it is lost forever - protecting it now secures vital environmental, social, and economic benefits for future generations. The focus for development should be on brownfield sites which have the existing infrastructure in place.   Review of the potential growth areas is alarming, with many areas covering green belt. The character of many of the smaller settlements would be destroyed should the proposed areas be built on. For example, Acton Bridge has a population of approximately 600 people. The average household size is 2.4 people. The housing estimate for Acton Bridge across the five areas is 969. This would equate to approximately 2,325 people which is almost four times the existing population. This would completely destroy the rural character of the village. In addition, whilst there is a railway station, the trains only go to a limited number of places, the ticket costs are astronomical and the services infrequent. The associated increase in vehicles would have a significant impact in terms of air quality, as well as noise and the loss of green belt would have a significant adverse impact on ecology. Additionally, the additional housing would have a significant adverse impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the village has no school, no doctors, no dentist and no shops, and the bus service is almost non-existent, therefore the village cannot support such growth.
Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 12877

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Diamond

I&O_13396
I am emailing about building proposals on green belt land opposite where I live! I support option A - retain the green belt'.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12881

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Jaco Barendse

I&O_13400
My main concern revolves around the suggestion of Green Belt release and the negative impact this will have on the community of Neston and Parkgate. I therefore strongly support Option A: Retention of the Green Belt in response to Question SS 11. I understand that there is a need to cater for certain types of housing, viz. smaller dwellings for downsizing of aging residents, student accommodation, etc. I generally disagree that there is a lack of affordable housing, however affordable is defined. We moved to Neston just under 2 years ago. There were 3 main reasons why we chose to settle here: 1) The natural environment and rural surrounds, including the Dee Marsh but also the prominent Green Belt to the East, North and South and its continuity with the Wirral Way and Country Park. 2) Affordability and wide variety of available of properties on the market – there were numerous houses available at or below the national average house price. You can get a lot for your money in Neston, and it is a great area for first time buyers like us. To my estimation this is even more true now than 2 years ago. In our estate alone there must be at least 5 or 6 detached or semi-detached properties around or below the £300,000 mark. Because of the aging population there is a ready supply of properties. 3) A good selection of primary schools and good amenities such as shops, surgeries and pharmacies, a fitness club, botanical garden, children’s play areas, and good road connectivity to Chester or Liverpool. I do not believe that the housing needs will be satisfied by building new estates in the Green Belt of extending the town border. I’d be surprised if these could be delivered at a cost below what is already available on the market. Rather there should be focus on unused or dilapidated buildings near the town centre or identifying properties that could be redeveloped to serve the needs of the community.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12895

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cheryl Carless

I&O_13414
I object to building new homes on greenbelt or any green spaces in the area. These types of developments would ruin it. Infrastructure and regeneration should be a focus and to choose sites that need to be improved not destroyed..    The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries. We should be trying to protect it, not build on it. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12897

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Charlie and Matt ONeill

I&O_13416
We write to strongly object to the reduction of green belt land and to confirm our vote for Option A - to retain the green belt. We need to protect our precious countryside, particularly at this time of climate crisis.  Surely, there hasn't been a more vital time to protect the natural environment and wildlife.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12899

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Harvey

SS 11
I&O_13418
I would like to choose Option A-  Retaining Green Belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12901

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julia Neal

I&O_13420
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: 12902

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Cheetham

I&O_13421
Option A   Answer  RETAIN OUR GREEN BELT.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12903

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ray McHale

I&O_13422
I am not convinced of the benefit of the 3 options you put forward (protecting the Green Belt, continuation of existing strategy and the transport corridors option).   Inevitable no single option should be chosen, and a combination of all of them seems more logical.  Given the number of houses that need to be developed not accepting some encroachment onto the Green Belt around Chester, Ellesmere Port, Frodsham, and Northwich would unreasonably push the burden of more housing towards Winsford and mid-Cheshire villages and small towns.   In that sense the current strategy is a better solution, but all of those smaller settlements need to take a proportion of development.  The transport corridors option has some merits, but significantly closing the gap between Helsby and Frodsham is not a good idea.  The Transport Corridor option would seem to me to push new housing development in Ellesmere Port to the West of the town, to fully utilise the stations at Capenhurst, and Hooton.  A new station at Ledsham doesn’t seem feasible without considerable investment in parking, which might duplicate or replace Hooton as the main Park and Ride. Mersey rail need to resolve their flooding issues at Hooton.  Better use of stations at Ince and Elton seems sensible – preferably linking in Helsby and Elton to Mersey Rail (a possibility if battery powered trains are introduced).  The suggestion of a new station in Little Neston should not be forgotten if the Wrexham to Liverpool Line is eventually to be enhanced and battery trains used.  There is a large residential area that could be served by such a station.  Significant development in the heart of rural Cheshire based on the Mid-Cheshire Railway Line should not be acceptable.  Use of public transport form these locations would be small compared to vehicle usage.  It would be a con to develop big houses in nice rural locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 12913

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Meredith

I&O_13432


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12920

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Wendy Gauld

I&O_13439
Cuddington and Sandiway I object to all of the planning proposed. The infrastructure and services are not in place. Our greenbelt land should definitely be saved Regards W Gauld Sent from my iPad

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12922

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Stephanie Maltas

SS 11
I&O_13441
My choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt Once the Green Belt is lost, it cannot be replaced. We must preserve it for our children and future generations.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt