Comment

Representation ID: 2571

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2724
We do not necessarily consider that every hectare of the current defined Green Belt should necessarily be protected from development as some land in the Green Belt is arguably of lower environmental value than land outside the Green Belt (including some land within urban settlements that are important for wildlife and/or the health/wellbeing of residents – we need to ensure that the “urban areas first” approach does not end up with a concrete jungle with no green/blue space remaining in the urban settlements).   The Green Belt concept is still important but it could do with a review to check that the current zoning is appropriate and that it does its primary job of preventing uncontrolled urban sprawl and the joining up of townscapes. We consider the Local Plan should be more guided by LNRS priorities and objectives and using the detailed LNRS spatial mapping to help determine spatial planning policy. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2619

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Shakeshaft

I&O_2772
I believe that Cheshire West and Chester should prioritise developments around sustainable transport options, such as train stations and on bus routes. (Option C). Option C is the least worst option.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 2638

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS 11
I&O_2791
None of the above options

Comment

Representation ID: 2686

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: David Molyneaux

I&O_2839
d. None of these. Although option A indicates that this plan would retain the greenbelt, yet it doesn't. Unfortunately, the option to retain the greenbelt is for a minimum of 500 homes, not for a lesser number, if any at all. Will the building of 500 homes impact our greenbelt and green land? If this option were selected, where would the homes be built in terms of Frodsham?

Comment

Representation ID: 2712

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Birtles

I&O_2868
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 2774

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2943
Option A retain the green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2812

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Smith

SS5
I&O_2982
SS5: None of the Options meets the needs of Kelsall. A hybrid approach is required that first looks at careful release of Green Belt land and then considers the ability of existing settlements to absorb targetted increases in housing: road infrastructure, service infrastructure, schools, health facilities, etc.Additionally, consideration needs to be given to centres of employment and the travel patterns of employees. Turning Cheshire West villages into dormitories with the majority of the population travelling elsewhere to work is not a good use of resources, will destroy local communities and will have adverse effects on the environement. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2828

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Eddleston

SS11
I&O_2998
C but with additional farmland being protected in the future to replace that which is lost from Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2838

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Ingrid Fife

SS11
I&O_3008
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 2857

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

I&O_3028
Option A - this would do the most to ensure that the environment and important woodland habitats are protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 2921

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: STEPHEN IRELAND

I&O_3095
Having been to public event at Winsford and discussed with your team the 3 options that are being considered in looking at the pros and cons of each option. I believe Option 3 to be the best option for the following reasons. To distribute housing around settlements that are close to railway stations and main bus routes will demonstrate that the county is serious on meeting it's climate change requirements. Car journeys will be less. Winsford will be fairly treated as if option 1 was adopted Winsford would become a building site for the next 15 years and probably impossible to live in. Option 3 would also allow and favour development around the station quarter of Winsford near to Winsford industrial estate so less travel and less need to use rural land on the south west of Winsford/ Darnhall  I believe Option 3 is sensible, fairer and better deliverable.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 2954

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Byron Moses

I&O_3128
I would like to lodge my comments on the new local plan proposal.  I have found the document and process to comment extremely difficult.  The only part I feel I can comment on is that I would prefer to continue with option B and Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development.  This is the lesser of all evils in my opinion as I feel all open countryside should be protected and infrastructure (Doctors, schools, dentists, better busses, better trains etc.) needs to be put in place before any further houses are built not after. 

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

Comment

Representation ID: 2961

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony Rippin

I&O_3135
I object to the fact that Winsford was the last place visited for consultation when it is the town that is most likely to be affected the most , particularly in plan option A. Winsford has c2 weeks to respond. Northwich had 6 weeks. This is unfair and I hope illegal. With 29000 homes needed across the county, plan A puts more than a third of them ( 10,000) around one town of Winsford. 10,000 houses will contain approximately 22,000 people. The present population of Winsford is c 35,000. So plan A means an increase in size by over 66%. No other area has been earmarked to increase its population as a percentage in this totally unfair way. This is not an equal distribution of housing across the whole of CWAC. This has not been made clearly in the publicity produced by the planning authority. I would like planning to provide proposed percentage increase in Chester, Northwich, Frodsham, and Ellesmere Port in its literature so it can be compared to the 66% for Winsford. Given the major climate change we are suffering, any plan labelled as pro “green” will be more likely to be selected. Plan A is labelled using the word “green” unfairly.  Having the consultation day in Winsford in the middle of August when many are on holiday decreases the accessibility of the information. Again this is unfair should be illegal.   I would like to predict that Plan A will be the one chosen. I suspect the options have been drawn up with that end in sight. I pray I am wrong.

Comment

Representation ID: 2963

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Young

Question SS 11
I&O_3137
I prefer option C, with more numerous but smaller developments following sustainable transport corridors. I believe that distributing small blobs of development is more in keeping with the area, would result in higher quality homes with better access to green spaces, and would overall improve the quality and standard of living. It would also improve the business case for sustainable transport through these areas and would therefore contribute to the improvement of these services.

Comment

Representation ID: 2977

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Stapleton-Chambers

I&O_3151
I am writing to agree on Option A as the best option. We must retain our Green Belt land. The floods in the Ellesmere Port area are getting worst each year. Taking the green belt can only exacerbate this situation. We also need to consider the world position and our our countries food production going forward. Green belt needs to be saved for this reason. Pollution is also a factor as we need to consider green areas to help balance this out.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2984

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Glyn Morris

I&O_3158
Before getting into specifics, I have to say I think it is regrettable that CWAC could consider calling proposals to build on green belt land the ‘sustainable’ option. Yes, Frodsham does have station and a bus service so terrible that CWAC are piloting a minibus service here. The station does not make large-scale developments in Frodsham (or anywhere else, come that) ‘sustainable’! Shame on you! First and foremost I am vehemently opposed to there being any significant building on green belt land. We – and those who came before us – have preserved these green places between our settlements for a long time now. If that effort and sacrifice is now surrounded what a travesty that will be. As I understand it, green belt land can only be built on if there is both no alternative and a pressing need. CWAC have shown no pressing need in the borough, and especially not in Frodsham; the area about which (as a resident) I am most concerned. I understand that the Government require CWAC to produce a plan for the additional housing units, in my opinion that does not equate to a need. I would suggest, therefore, CWAC should think very carefully about ‘need’ before attempting to produce a plan which well be challenged on this point. It is also clear – from CWAC’s own proposals put forward through the consultation – that there are alternative options to building on green belt land. Again, therefore, I would like to see option ‘A’ adopted; and feel there will be significant protest and challenge if CWAC propose to accept an alternative.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 2997

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare McIlraith

I&O_3171
Option A – RETAIN THE GREEN BELT

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3015

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Beryl Prior

I&O_3189
Option C

Comment

Representation ID: 3065

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3239
The most appropriate spatial strategy is Option A – Retain the Green Belt . Reasons for supporting Option A: Conforms with updated national policy The NPPF (2024) makes clear that unmet housing need alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release. Option A is the only option that is consistent with the new “golden rule” of Green Belt protection. Inspector’s conclusions still apply At the adoption of the Local Plan (Part One), the Inspector found that further Green Belt release would cause significant harm to its purposes, particularly around Chester, and that boundaries could endure beyond 2030. Circumstances have not changed to justify departing from this conclusion. Brownfield and regeneration opportunities The borough has substantial brownfield and urban regeneration potential (e.g. Ellesmere Port, Chester, Winsford, Northwich). Directing growth here supports sustainability, reduces pressure on rural settlements, and avoids undermining the Green Belt. Avoiding unsustainable allocations Options B and C both risk directing growth into smaller, poorly serviced settlements (e.g. Weaverham/NOR11), creating car dependency, pressure on overstretched services, and loss of countryside. In particular, Option C’s focus on “sustainable transport corridors” is misleading where rail access is limited: for example, Acton Bridge station is unmanned, has poor parking, no disabled access, and limited service frequency , making it wholly unsuitable to anchor strategic growth. Climate change and biodiversity Green Belt provides critical functions in carbon storage, flood management, air quality, and biodiversity corridors . Retaining it aligns with the overarching Local Plan principles on tackling climate change and enhancing biodiversity. Habitats Regulations compliance The HRA Screening (June 2025) identifies cumulative risks from development around Weaverham, Northwich, and Acton Bridge. Retaining the Green Belt avoids exacerbating recreational and air quality pressures on European protected sites. Why Options B and C are inappropriate: Option B (Current distribution) continues unsustainable dispersal into rural settlements and risks further piecemeal Green Belt erosion. Option C (Sustainable transport corridors) misapplies the concept: in reality, many supposed “corridors” (e.g. Weaverham via Acton Bridge) are not sustainable in transport terms. It would artificially concentrate growth where infrastructure does not exist. Conclusion: Option A — Retain the Green Belt — is the most appropriate and defensible spatial strategy. It aligns with national policy, protects the countryside, directs growth towards regeneration and brownfield opportunities, and avoids unsustainable allocations.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3176

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Acton Bridge Parish Council

I&O_3350
The green belt should be retained wherever possible. We recognise it may be necessary to sacrifice some small sections of green belt to sustain communities and provide additional housing. This should be kept to a minimum. Sustainable transport corridors need very careful consideration. We do not consider that Acton Bridge Station constitutes a sustainable transport corridor. There is only 1 train per hour to Liverpool and Birmingham. There is no connection to Northwich, Warrington or Manchester and these are frequently commuted places by current residents of Acton Bridge. There is no disabled access to the station. Current use of the station exceeds the car park capacity as it is resulting in parking on nearby roads. Acton Bridge contains no services other than one pub. Therefore access to all other services is via car. ie. not sustainable. We are unable to say whether similar issues apply to other identified sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 3193

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Windsor

I&O_3367
A

Comment

Representation ID: 3213

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Rhys Jones

I&O_3387
Option A - Retain (what is left) of the Green Belt. Chester City has already lost over 90 acres of Green Belt to the Wrexham Road development. What is left of the Green Belt serves as an important space for wildlife and area of recreation for residents. It is also vital to the character and image of Chester as a small but vibrant city in a countryside setting. The large area of land highlighted as being suitable for development between the A41 and A55/M53 from Warrington Road (A56) to Vicars Cross Road has no amenities. It is an area cut off from the shops and facilities of Hoole and Vicars Cross by an extremely busy and fast dual carriageway with no means of safe crossing. Previous Land Allocation Assessments have remarked on a lack of biodiversity in this area however this land is rich in biodiversity with greater crested newts, bats, owls and other rare birds and mammals. Additionally, any development of this land would cause urban sprawl into Mickle Trafford and Guilden Sutton. CWAC recognise the importance of green spaces for mental any physical wellbeing in numerous policies and it's important that their actions support this by not building on vital Green Belt land. 

Comment

Representation ID: 3238

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3412
Option C

Comment

Representation ID: 3302

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3476
option A – retain the green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3402

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: SJ and PA Lee Partnership

Agent: Gary Halman Land and Planning Limited

I&O_3576
Of the options presented, we support Option C. This allows a focus on public transport provision and accessibility and so should produce benefits in ensuring new development is, wherever possible, accessible by means of transport other than the car. Option A is clearly unsustainable and inconsistent with national policy advice in the light of NPPF 2024 changes. Option B may have relevance, but reliance on a perpetuation of the current Plans’ distribution and approach to settlements does not take into account the significant policy changes which have occurred since that plan was formulated. It is therefore highly unlikely to represent the optimal spatial picture or strategy now.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 3418

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Oakley

I&O_3592
In relation to the above, our household would prefer option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3429

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Gary Nunn

Question SS 11
I&O_3603
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 3440

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3614
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 3456

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony O'Halloran

I&O_3630
My choice for the neighbourhood plan is option A.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 3475

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Samantha Moses

I&O_3649
I have found the document and process to comment extremely difficult.  The only part I feel I can comment on is that I would prefer to continue with option B and Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development.  This is the lesser of all evils in my opinion as I feel all open countryside should be protected and infrastructure (Doctors, schools, dentists, better busses, better trains etc.) needs to be put in place before any further houses are built not after. 

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