Comment

Representation ID: 12924

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Purvis

I&O_13443
I choose Option A to retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12925

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe May

SS 11
I&O_13444
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. In answer to Question SS 11 my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12927

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jake Liddle

I&O_13446
My choice is Option A - to retain the green belt. 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: 12929

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Whiteley

I&O_13448
Cuddington and Sandiway As a resident of the Northwich area for nearly 40 years I have seen a great deal of change in the nature of what is ostensibly a semi-rural community comprising two towns and a number of villages. Whilst I understand and appreciate that housing is needed, I also feel strongly that we are in danger of losing the character of our communities if these villages begin to coalesce and the green belt is lost. Cuddington and Sandiway as a community has limited infrastructure to support an influx of new residents - we have lost our local doctors’ surgery for example, which has already put increased pressure on other surgeries in the practice. Any development would also need to consider the increased pressure on schools and transport links, and how this impacts existing residents. The Green Belt policy is intended to maintain the character of rural communities and, vitally, to protect our agricultural land. Cheshire is renowned as a green county, and this should be protected wherever possible; brownfield sites have been successfully reclaimed in Winnington and Lostock Gralam for example, and I feel strongly that using sites such as these is preferable to destroying essential agricultural land. If development has to occur in our area, I feel that least disruptive to our communities would be Option A - its proximity to the A556 would put less pressure on the village’s road network and maintains the green belt. In my opinion Option C would destroy the nature of our discrete communities, remove vital agricultural land on the green belt setting a precedent for the future; for these reasons I would urge that Option C is NOT considered.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12933

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nina Armitage-Lyon

I&O_13452
my choice is Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12935

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cliff Mallows

I&O_13454
My comments below relate to the draft three spatial options- ref SS11. I believe the new local plan should be based on Option A - retaining the green belt. It is well defined, logical and an established basis on which to address the government’s need to provide the housing targets for CWAC. I would strongly oppose Option C. The proposal that a sustainable transport corridor can be based on the provision of a number of small individual railway stations seems flawed. Specifically in Acton Bridge the suggestion that with 600 current inhabitants the provision of 500 additional households can be justified on a rather arbitrary proposal that the railway station will address the resulting transport needs is implausible. These numbers would swamp the village and put enormous strain on the local road network. I suspect the same problems would arise with the other suggested hubs. Acton Bridge can and should support a small, appropriate number of new residential properties but I would suggest 50 properties over a five year period would be a more acceptable proposition.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12936

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lesley-Ann Fenton

I&O_13455


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12937

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lauren Moss

I&O_13456
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: 12938

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe Pearson

I&O_13457
my answer is A - retain the GreenBelt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12941

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Williams

I&O_13460
Option A - retain green belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12942

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ben Howlett

I&O_13461
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12943

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Montri Brusselers

I&O_13462
  Answering Question: SS11 Answer: Option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12945

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bob Gauld

I&O_13464
Cuddington and Sandiway  I object to the proposal for housing,we need to protect our green belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12946

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Carter

I&O_13465
I am emailing in connection with the new Local Plan which Cheshire West is preparing to deal with the 1900 extra properties per annum set by Government  I live in Cuddington and am very concerned with the number of properties that could potentially be built in the area, in recent years we have had a number of new developments in the area, but with very little improvement to the infrastructure or local amenities, so in my opinion there should be no more building in the Cuddington area  I also think we must keep the green belt free of housing, not just for us but future generations Having said that, if is deemed necessary that there has to be provision for new housing in the area, then it should definitely NOT be on green belt land, which means that Option A is the only one feasible  I hope you will take my comments on board

Comment

Representation ID: 12947

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hayley Purdy

I&O_13466
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 objections should be recorded 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. I would like to highlight the ongoing issues experienced on the Taylor Wimpey Eden Grange Development off the A49 within Cuddington which is significantly overdue completion (by more than 7 years) due to inadequate work, management and oversight by the relevant authorities including the CWAC planning officers and building regulations. I would expect that any further plans to develop will be managed more stringently to ensure residents of any new development and the wider community are not subject to such negative life-impacting experiences again. 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. In summary, our Neighbourhood Plan, supported by over 95% of residents in the 2019 referendum, remains fully active and relevant. Within it, 93% of respondents clearly agreed that development in the Green Belt and open countryside should be resisted. Our Vision states: “Cuddington seeks to be a vibrant community-centred Parish which retains and enhances its historic and rural village character.”

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12948

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Askew

I&O_13467

Option A - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 12949

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Foden

CUD02, DUD03, CUD05
I&O_13468
I wish to object to the proposals to build on green belt in my locality. I would opt for OPTION A - Retain the Green Belt. The neighbourhood plan was already defined in 2015, for the period to 2030, areas CUD02 and CUD03 which had been decided already, to add housing in excess of our local target. Further proposed development in areas such as CUD05, not only impacts green belt, but real areas of natural beauty that all locals can enjoy; and many visitors to area often comment, on the natural beauty that we have here and have thus far retained.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12952

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Kirwin

I&O_13471
I strongly favour Option A (retain the greenbelt). 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12956

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Dickson

I&O_13475
I am pleased to read that the vision for Cheshire West and Chester's development plan emphasises climate change mitigation, wellbeing, infrastructure provision and character protection.  There is certainly a need for greater housing provision and sustainable transport. With this in mind, I very much hope the Council will adopt Option A and retain the Green Belt. whilst also addressing the pressing need for greater housing provision with sustainable transport.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12957

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jeffrey Fenton

I&O_13476
Dear Sir/Madam I am responding to Question SS11 regarding the option choices in the Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation document. My preferred option is Option A: Retain the Greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12959

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Justine Walker

I&O_13478
I am writing in response to the current Local Plan consultation. Having lived in Cheshire West all my life.  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: 12970

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Hatcher

I&O_13489


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12973

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Keith and Elizabeth Webb

I&O_13492


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12978

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Steven Bryne

I&O_13497
In answer to Question SS11 my choice is Option A - Retain the greenbelt. Kind regards

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12979

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jack Hopkins

I&O_13498
I am a local resident to Malpas and am against the building of development on nearby greenbelt land.  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: 12981

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra Worthington

I&O_13500
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: 12986

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alexandra O'Toole

I&O_13505
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: 12995

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Timms

I&O_13514


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 12996

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Farrimond

I&O_13515


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13000

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Elizabeth MacGlashan

I&O_13519
very simply, I am in favour of option A only - Retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt