Comment

Representation ID: 13187

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Tracy Jefferies

I&O_13706
My choice is: Option A retain the green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13191

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Danchin

I&O_13710
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: 13194

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Jeffery

I&O_13713
I am respoding to Question SS 11 and my choice is: Option A – retain the Green belt. Sarah Jeffery.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13195

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Jann Cannon

SS 11
I&O_13714
I am in support of Option A, Retain the Green Belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13196

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Nadine Worthington

I&O_13715
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: 13200

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Nick Pulman

I&O_13719
With regards to SS11 Retention of Green Belt I strongly oppose any further loss of agricultural land along the axes of Lache Lane and Wrexham Road Every year Lache Lane gets busier with more cars moving at higher speeds (when they are not queuing back from the roundabout) with continual malfunction of speed warning system. It gets harder to access key services such as doctors and the thought of the drainage issues these flat fields will cause if developed is another major concern. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13201

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nicola Schroeder

SS 11
I&O_13720
I choose, Option A, Save Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13203

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: George Land

I&O_13722
I have examined the proposals for a new Local Plan and I prefer Option B. In particular I think option C would be highly objectionable as it would subject hitherto small places to housing development on a scale that would utterly change their character.   I feel that the distinction between Green Belt and Open Countryside is in fact increasingly irrelevant. Few people want any countryside to be built upon, irrespective of its designation, and sprawl of existing settlements is rarely desireable. I would prefer completely new towns and villages to be built if more housing is required.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13204

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Derek Lawrenson

I&O_13723
After the recent meeting on Delamere Park  27/8/25  where Gillian Edwards was present and outlined the proposed CWAC Local Plan for the area surrounding Delamere Park I am selecting Option A - Retain the Green Belt that surrounds Delamere Park as was always the intention.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13205

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Sibbick

I&O_13724
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: 13206

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Heather Spencer

I&O_13725
I would like to select option c (development around transport links.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 13209

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Louise Cronin

I&O_13728
I wish to add my opinion as a local resident and tax payer in Westminster Park. In response to Question SS 11, I support the retention of the Green Belt on Lache Lane

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13216

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Carole Johnstone

I&O_13735
I strongly support Option A – Retain the Green Belt. The green belt has been protected for generations — not by accident, but through deliberate and thoughtful policy designed to preserve the character of our countryside, prevent urban sprawl, and safeguard the wellbeing of communities like ours. It is a legacy of foresight and care, and to dismantle it now, under pressure from a new government agenda and through a rushed consultation process, is deeply concerning. Such decisions should be made with transparency, integrity, and genuine community engagement. Kelsall and surrounding villages are already under strain. Our infrastructure — roads, schools, healthcare, and public services are not equipped to absorb the impact of up to 500 new houses without serious consequences to quality of life and sustainability. Moreover, the green belt is not just a buffer — it is a draw. Particularly in Cheshire, our countryside is a magnet for tourism. Visitors come here to escape the noise and congestion of urban life, to walk, cycle, and breathe in the peace of our natural landscapes. If we erode these spaces, we risk putting off the very people who support our local businesses such as cafés, shops, B&Bs, and farm stalls — all of which rely on the steady flow of countryside visitors. What kind of future are we building if it comes at the cost of the very landscapes and communities that define us? I urge you to uphold the principles that have guided planning policy for decades. Protect our green belt. Respect the voices of local residents and voters and the future generations.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13218

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wundke

I&O_13737
In response to question SS 11, I support the retention of the green belt. Without an extra bridge across the DEE the proposal to build more houses at the bottom of Lache Lane is simply nonsensical both logistically and in defying the green belt order.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13219

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Lornagh Maher

I&O_13738
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: 13220

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Robson

I&O_13739
Having been made aware of the proposed large-scale development on the 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. I’d also like to express further concerns over the severe lack of communication during the consultation process. For example the map published was very poor quality, unreadable and too small. When I personally went to Neston library the day before the meeting they had not heard anything. The meeting itself was extremely poorly planned with inadequate seating and a poor speaker system meaning myself and many of my neighbours were unable to hear. My Answer to Question SS 11 is: Option A - retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13221

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Scott

I&O_13740
In response to Question SS 11,  I support the retention of the Green Belt. The area where I live has already see a huge number of new houses on Wrexham Road and it is my opinion that the CH4 area simply cannot accommodate any further new builds. Since the Wrexham Road development began, the increase in flooding locally has been very noticeable. Balderton Brook, the main drainage channel, overflows regularly and there is the additional aspect of it discharging into a tidal river which twice a day is higher than the drain channel. Some parts of Lache are already, and have always been, at risk of flooding and should more houses be built off Lache Lane  it is inevitable that some people's homes will be flooded - surely this is not CWAC want. Additionally, Lache Lane itself is a small and winding country road and higher traffic levels would make it extremely dangerous. It simply is not adequate to cope with hundreds more vehicles and added to which the whole of the South of the River relies on a 200 year old single lane bridge to access the City. It simply isn't feasible, especially as the oft speculated Western Relief road is never going to happen. Then there is the question of Green spaces, which CWAC itself is committed to the importance of.  Lache already has one of the lowest ratios of green space per person and abandoning yet more green areas is environmentally and health wise a bad idea. Please keep our Green Belt in CH4

Comment

Representation ID: 13222

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Francis Auty

I&O_13741
Just wish to support the " retain the green belt" ( option 1) for the area between Great Boughton and Christleton. There is surely enough land in brown field site status in the area? Once green belt is gone it is usually gone for ever?

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13225

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sheran Hughes

Map 5.4
I&O_13744
I am answering question SS 11 My answer is OPTION A - RETAIN THE GREENBELT Especially with regard to Map Reference 5.4 lack of supporting infrastructure, flooding risk, reduction in green space

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13235

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Robin Hughes

I&O_13754
My answer to your specific question is ‘none of the above’. Option A Option A is prima facie attractive for Neston, if only because it demands land for the smallest number of new-builds, up to 500, and does not require the large Green Belt employment site on the A540. Despite that, closer examination reveals that it does not really stand up. The reasoning set out by Cheshire West Council for the low target of 200 homes within the current Local Plan is still valid. It includes: Next to no land availability Inadequate infrastructure Even if, this time, protected Green Belt is to be sacrificed, the limited infrastructure, remains and is a problem for the current population let alone a larger one. I see that investment in waste water services is just announced  but that deals with only one aspect. Option B It follows that much the same applies to the prospect of up to 1,500 homes requiring a large Green Belt incursion plus a large amount of employment land in the buffer zone close to the urbanised land across the border. In this Option railway lines and bus corridors assume significance for future development  but it is hard to see how that would work in relation to our one town centre railway station on the Welsh Borderline, the absence of anything that might look like a ‘bus corridor’, and dependence on the dangerous A540 road, already under pressure from large transport vehicles, many serving Aldi, as well as  the heavy goods vehicle transit restrictions imposed by Wirral Borough Council upon on cross-peninsular roads that join the A540 at four points. Option C It follows that an Option which envisages up to 3,000 homes and includes the employment site discussed above, is plainly not feasible even within a 30-year timeframe. Delivering sufficient infrastructure on this scale, requiring the involvement of Welsh Water, Transport for Wales, the Liverpool Region Combined Authority, Merseytravel, Wirral Borough Council, the Regional NHS, and Education and Training agencies, to name just a few, requires it to arrive in parallel with the house-building programme and that sounds like a tall order. It is justified neither in terms of local housing nor employment need and would change the whole character of the area. It would undermine the main element of Neston’s putative visitor economy strategy, destroying the very landscape that is the main attraction.

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 13239

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Dalton

I&O_13758
I vote for option B, but I am really concerned about the size of the school and the local doctors. Without these being updated and made larger I don’t think Farndon can cope with any more houses. 

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13241

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Taylor

I&O_13760
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed large scale development on Green Belt land in and around Parkgate and Neston. My answer to Question SS11 and my choice is:- Option A-  retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13253

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Swain

SS 11
I&O_13772
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the large-scale development that I understand is proposed on Green Belt land in and around Neston and Parkgate. My choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13265

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Heather

I&O_13784
I consider Plan A the only viable option for the Neston and Parkgate area. However I believe that it would be difficult to accommodate even 500 new homes without incursion into the Green belt. This would also apply to Plan B.  There are no large areas of brown field land available in Neston or Parkgate. Other than infill, where would they be built?   Plan C  is totally unacceptable as it would destroy large areas of prime agricultural land when food production should be a priority. It would totally destroy the character of the area. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13268

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Roy and Julia Symmers

I&O_13787
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number of new houses to the Cuddington area and east of Delamere Park, our votes and objection would be as follows. Our preferred option is Option A - to retain the area as is, promote the green belt for agriculture and natural use.  Ultimately we have to have a sufficient food source in the UK and one of the original intentions of green belt was to discourage connection of urban areas.   If building is absolutely essential under national plans then we would elect Option B - limiting the build to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is not acceptable as there are limited amenities.   N.B.   Based on the population of Cuddington and Sandiway being 6196 in 2021 and an average of 2.26 people per household,  if Option C is adopted the population of Cuddington and Sandiway will increase by approximately 8700 that is 240%.  This would be not only unacceptable but also unreasonable!

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13270

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Williams

I&O_13789
I would like to express my support for Option A: Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13277

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Marilyn Hartley

I&O_13796
I support the retention of the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13278

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Roberts

SS 11
I&O_13797
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 SS11 my choice is:- Option A -retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13285

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chervana Hobbs

I&O_13804
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 This is because Neston and surrounding areas in Cheshire West already suffer from a lack of local nurseries, schools, GPs, NHS services and NHS dentists - relying on distant Merseyside services to meet local demand. The transport links to Chester and local hospitals are already concerningly poor and roads and pavements are unmaintained and dangerous to all users. Without upgrading old and introducing new, or upgrading facilities, services and infrastructure like those mentioned above, Neston and surrounding areas cannot afford to increase the local population; especially by the proposed 25% that could be added through the suggested housing numbers on green belt land. There is no detail in the proposed options about such amenities being planned to meet any demand from new housing. Finally, have the planning officers read The Lorax? If not, the learning we can take from that is that we should not kill off our green belt trees, or land. If we do, there will be irreversible damage to the environment, habitats and to future generations in the long-term.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13290

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Austin

I&O_13809
As a resident in Newton/Upton area I wish to vote OPTION A - Retain the Green Belt You are proposing to build on Green Belt Land, however, there are number of parcels of land that are derelict in our area that need developing first.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt