Comment

Representation ID: 13009

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Pete Dennett

I&O_13528
Green belts are essential for wildlife, biodiversity, and flood management. They prevent urban sprawl, preserving the character of towns and villages. Once lost, green belt land cannot be replaced, so protecting it now secures long-term environmental, social, and economic benefits. Development should focus on brownfield sites, which already have the necessary infrastructure.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13011

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carl Rogers

SS 11
I&O_13530
In response to plans for new houses in Cheshire: I object strongly and say we should retain the county’s Green Belt. In particular: On Question SS 11 my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt.  To do otherwise will severely reduce the quality of life for all in Cheshire.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13012

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Howard Green

I&O_13531
Context Planning policy seeks to balance many objectives/criteria in order to promote sustainable development. Because it is plan and criteria based it involves judgment in order to reach consistent and coherent decisions. Per the NPPF (December 2024) there are three overarching objectives to be balanced/managed: economic, social, and environmental. The social objective is there to help build and support strong, vibrant, and healthy communities. This is to be achieved by “fostering well-designed, beautiful and safe places, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being”. At the heart of plan development is a spatial strategy which governs land allocations/use in support of those objectives. Determining the role that a particular land area has in meeting the plan objectives will use analysis (the evidence base) as to how various characteristics/features are present or not, in order to determine suitability for inclusion in the development plan. The existing CWaC Local Plan has been properly consulted and is logically coherent in the framework that it presents and has provided a sound basis for decision making in respect of planning matters except in respect of the allocation of land to Gypsy, Traveller, and Travelling Showpersons accommodations where it has been found by the Planning Inspectorate in deciding planning application appeals to be deficient. Spatial Strategy Options The requirement to accelerate housing development (more housing delivered quicker) which is required by the current government’s policy suggests that the new plan should be an extension of existing decision-making frameworks. It is a logical conclusion that changes of direction should be kept to a minimum as proving their utility through the evidence base needed to support decisions will absorb too much time and it also increases the risk of legal challenge, i.e the update of the Local Plan should build out from the existing evidence base, updated as necessary. For this reason, Option C of the three spatial options presented is rejected as a practical way forward. It merely uses one of the many criteria for determining the suitability of a location, in this case the existence of a railway line, to justify the option put forward. The choice of that one criterion and the suggested overbearing weight in decision making is not consistent with modern trends in technology, working habits, or the way people travel and shop. It is an old-fashioned view of life which is not relevant in the 21 st Century.    Indeed, the current Local Plan takes a far more holistic approach, and has a clear settlement hierarchy of Urban Settlements, Key Service Centres, and Local Service Centres which help focus decision making. Of the other two options Option B of the three spatial options is the most pragmatic (and quickest) way for the council to proceed. If greenbelt land is required, which it probably is, then this must be joined to existing settlement locations. Whilst this would result in some loss of greenbelt land it avoids the ‘dalmatian’ effect referred to earlier and allows development to take place where there is an already established level of service provision and infrastructure. It would be an appropriate response to the government diktat. However, this should also be in addition to ensuring that developers are penalised for failure to execute their already approved plans (the 6,000 approved units not yet built); an accelerated programme to require the owners of the land where there are a potential 5,000 units on previously developed land to bring forward plans in the next six months or the land will be compulsorily purchased; and a programme to require developers with landbanks to bring forward plans for development within the next 12 months. There should be meaningful financial penalties sanctioned by government for non-compliance, the proceeds of which flow back to councils.

Comment

Representation ID: 13016

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Cuddington Parish Council

I&O_13535
I have been instructed to inform you that Cuddington Parish Council have agreed to opt for 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: 13020

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin McKendrick

I&O_13539
I am a resident of Cuddington and Sandiway, and I can see there are 3 options on which you seek feedback for housebuilding in the next Plan.  They are listed as Options A, B,or C. All options contravene the current Neighbourhood Plan which was agreed via a more than 90% in favour some 5 years ago.  Several planning applications have sought to test this Plan and each have failed at the Planning Inspectorate.  Therefore I would object to any of these options being viable, since they are not specific enough to be designated by road names etc, certainly the blobs marked as CUD 02 and CUD 03 significantly contravene the Neighbourhood Plan which the community voted for. Cuddington and Sandiway have already delivered 2 major housing developments in recent years, and lost the fight to retain a Doctors surgery, therefore I consider the infrastructure to be already overloaded and any further developments would also pose additional road safety concerns. The community need more specific details about any proposal for inclusion in the Borough Plan in order to make informed representation.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13031

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Gordon Ryan

I&O_13550
Options A, B and C The housing volumes within Option A are clearly the very worst case for Farndon.  Options B and C are better, but should not be seen as okay, preferable or without issue (e.g. why haven’t other areas been considered for small scale developments too, as outlined above).

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13035

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Bulmer

SS 11
I&O_13554
Option A - Retain the Green Belt. I recommend smaller sites to be allocated for housing that will add to existing communities, instead of over large housing estates, that then will result in amalgamation of towns and villages and add stress to all existing services and transport infrastructure (health services, shops, local schools already at capacity, etc.).

Comment

Representation ID: 13037

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Friends of Park Fields

I&O_13556
The Friends of Park Fields have a 10 year management agreement for Park Fields we are also officially recognised as consultation partners for any development proposal on the land. Any development of the green belt particularly the fields adjacent Parkfields to Boathouse lane -(these fields for many years have until last year had been laying dormant , un used for agricultural land and therefore have become land of specific natural interest) are significant concern for The Friends of Park Fields.  Having been made aware of the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate, we are writing to express our deep concerns on behalf of our 130 local members over the plans. We are strongly opposed to the proposal and concerned that development will undermine the work we are doing on Park Fields to improve the biodiversity of the area. We also feel that this level of development will significantly adversely  affect the natural beauty of Parkgate which so many people enjoy  In answer to *Question SS 11* my choice is: *Option A – Retain the Green Belt* We would also wish to ensure that the Friends group are acknowledged as special interest group and are involved in any future consultantion  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13040

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Simone Spinillo

I&O_13559
My preference is Option A – to retain the designated Green Belt land.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13043

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Rachael Bailey

I&O_13562
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large-scale development on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate, designated as NEP01 to NEP06. This proposal is deeply concerning and directly contradicts the established principles of Green Belt protection. I believe there are compelling reasons, both policy-based and personal, why this development should not proceed. Therefore, 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: 13050

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Percy

Agent: Susan Jones Consultancy

I&O_13569
Mr and Mrs Percy are of the opinion that new growth should not be on the North Cheshire Green Belt and as 48% of the Borough falls outside of the Green Belt then future growth should be targeted either within the settlement boundaries of urban areas/key service areas or just beyond in open countryside (see above comments). They therefore support Option A. Option B is referred to as “Current local Plan level and distribution of development”. However, it includes the potential to create more than 11,000 dwellings within Green Belt locations. However, as there has been no Green Belt study conducted yet, Mrs Jones fails to see how this option can be given serious consideration at present in any event. Option C is referred to as “Sustainable Transport Corridors”. This involves future growth “in and around settlements on the railway network and main bus route corridors (including the Green Belt)”. This option includes the release of Green Belt land to accommodate 12000 new dwellings. However again like Option B, without the results of the future Green Belt study Mrs Jones fails to understand how serious consideration can be given to this option as well at this stage.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13060

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Valerie Kinsey

I&O_13579
I am writing from the viewpoint of the farming community - having lived in the area, and been involved in agriculture, for over 50 years. Having seen the consultation map and potential development sites I, and my immediate family who are currently engaged in farming, are wholly in favour of Option A, ie retaining the area as it is, promoting Green Belt to maintain agriculture. Running a farming business presents it's own difficulties and challenges without the added pressure of increasing the population and all the extra volume of traffic on country roads which inevitably creates problems moving farm traffic and livestock around. The majority of farmers take a great pride and satisfaction in their work in providing food for the country and would NOT want to give up land for building. They are proud to be custodians of the land. If Option B is deemed to be essential then I feel that there should be a limit on the number of dwellings built, and absolutely NOT take good productive agricultural land, ie follow the current Local Plan level. Option C is not acceptable to my family and I, Cuddington and Sandiway does not have the essential services and support network to provide for a much increased population.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13068

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Roberts

I&O_13587
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13072

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lisabeth Miller

I&O_13591
I am emailing to express my support for option b. There are simply not enough services available in the local area to support the level of housing in the other options, not to mention the detrimental effects on biodiversity, the environment and green spaces. Once developed, the damage is irreversible and that number of houses on greenfield land on that scale is not ethical.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13081

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lindsey Ashley

I&O_13600
Please find my response regarding the planning application for the building on Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham. It is Question SS 11 and my  choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13088

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Dzelzainis

I&O_13607
The Local Plan represents an opportunity to make choices that will protect Cheshire West’s environment, communities, and rural identity for decades to come. Directing disproportionate numbers of homes to rural greenfield land without adequate infrastructure is not a sustainable option. Instead, I urge the Council to adopt a “Brownfield First and Proportionate Growth” approach, aligning development with transport and employment hubs, and safeguarding farmland and rural landscapes.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13092

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jean and Noel Partington

I&O_13611
Based on sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses in the Cuddington area east of Delamere Park my vote would be as follows:- My preference is Option A - to retain the area as set out in the current plan, promote the green belt and the land for agricultural use. The experience of this last summer & recent surges in food price inflation shows that the UK will soon need to exploit all its available agricultural land for food production. If building in the area is absolutely essential under national plans I would adopt Option B - limiting the builds to 500 houses in line with the current local & neighbourhood development plan. Affordable homes are the pressing need. They should be built upwards in cities & towns where there is already demand & where public transport links already exist. Option C is not acceptable not only for the reasons listed above, but because of the infrastructure deficit which already exists in our area. Where is the plan for new roads, bridges and public transport to accompany all this development? Recent experience with the single lane bridge over the Weaver at the Winnington development in Northwich suggests that these issues will be inadequately addressed as an afterthought & that ignores the issues of schools & doctors’ surgeries.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13097

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Hill

I&O_13616
I agree with Option A - Retain the greenbelt. Option A would retain the character of smaller settlements and retain the green space between settlements and sparsely populated areas, preventing urban sprawl. Option A focuses development on non-greenbelt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13111

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bassem Iskandarani

I&O_13630


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13113

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Fraser Hosker

I&O_13632
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt . This is the only option that protects communities, prevents urban sprawl, and supports the regeneration of existing urban areas.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13118

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Dawson

I&O_13637
I am a resident in Frodsham and 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: 13119

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael and Susan Askew

I&O_13638
In response to SS13 I would like to indicate a strong preference for option A retain the greenbelt. I adhere to the general principle that greenbelt land is important to the well-being of all in our society and was created for good reasons. All of which are still relevant today (and perhaps even more so now with increasing concerns about the ongoing damage to our environment and global warming). Guidance on GOV.UK is very clear regarding the national policy framework/13 -protecting -greenbelt -land. In short, no new development should take place on green belt land unless there is absolutey no alternative. The recent introduction of a grey belt land classification is a worrying development particularly given the activities of organisations that operate as land bankers, in effect taking agricultural land and letting it fall into disuse with a specific goal of eventually gaining permission to develop the land. It would seem to me that building on green belt largely benefits developers and damages existing communities.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13123

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Filby

I&O_13642
To answer question SS11 - I choose option A retain green belt land.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13129

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Network Rail

I&O_13648
Network Rail understands that no decisions have yet been taken about where development will be finally located, and that new specific site allocations are to be finalised and agreed upon, pending further technical work to assess the suitability and appropriateness of locations and sites to determine the most suitable spatial strategy. That said, it is noted that any spatial strategy option will likely require upgrades to existing rail infrastructure / the provision of new stations. Network Rail reserves the right to make further comments on spatial strategy options and associated allocations etc., as further work is undertaken to define these, and would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council in this regard, including with the identification of any key rail infrastructure implications and requirements. At this early stage however, Network Rail would make the following general comments in relation to any future spatial strategy and associated development allocations that may emerge: That new residential (and other) development close to railway infrastructure should be sited and designed to not restrict existing or likely future operational rail requirements. This would accord with the ‘agent of change’ principle established in the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”); That developers should enter into an ‘Asset Protection Agreement’ where necessary to ensure future protection of railway infrastructure; and That relevant policies for growth areas and site-specific allocations identify any necessary rail upgrades in consultation with Network Rail.

Comment

Representation ID: 13140

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Grove

I&O_13659
I am answering question ss11 and my choice is option A retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13142

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Hislop

I&O_13661
Having been made aware of plans for large scale development of Green Belt band in and around Parkgate and Neston I would like to voice my concern and objection In answer to Question SS 11 my choice is Option A Retain the Green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13144

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Clifford

NOR01
I&O_13663
My choice is: Option A - Retain the Green Belt. Our Green Belt land is constantly under threat of housing development and when these developments occur the local infrastructure is put under more strain. I live in Barnton and have seen new housing built in and around the Northwich area over the past 50 years with little or no change in the road network and public transport. The proposed growth area NOR01, north of Barnton - south of Cogshall Lane is of particular concern given that the shortest access routes into Northwich and its surrounding villages involve using either the A533 Winnington swing bridge or the B5075 Ollershaw Lane canal bridge, both of which are single track.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13150

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Nigel Haslock

I&O_13669
Map 5.1 Option A Retain the green belt I understand the need for development within the Council area, however I believe Greenbelt should be preserved not only for the very reason Greenbelt was introduced in the 1960s which is more relevant today than ever, but also to ensure viable agricultural land is preserved. Furthermore I do not accept exceptional circumstances exist to release Greenbelt. Chester City has large redevelopment opportunities to create many new homes within the borough, there are sites of brownfield sites developers could develop if the easy option of Greenbelt land is barred and not released.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13155

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Ross

I&O_13674
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: 13180

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Clair Ball

I&O_13699
Response - Option A retain the green belt. The current green belt boundaries must be retained for the following reasons:- • It will protect Barnton’s rural character and prevent unsustainable development. The Winnington swing bridge serves the community of Barnton so that residents can travel to Northwich town centre and beyond. It cannot currently cope with the amount of daily traffic that already passes over it daily. This was further impacted by the development of the Winnington Urban Village, without an alternative crossing being developed across the river Weaver. • There will also be added pressure to local schools, GP surgeries and dental practices, which would be detrimental to the existing community. • The green belt safeguards the countryside, therefore the wildlife and their habitats. • Any proposed alterations should be justified only by robust, demonstrated exceptional circumstances supported by environmental and infrastructure assessments. • Maintaining Option A upholds sustainable planning values, aligns with national policy, and reflects community interests. • Alternative options may lead to incremental erosion of the green belt, contradicting sustainable and environmentally planning principles.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt