Comment

Representation ID: 13303

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Jeffrey

I&O_13822
In answer to question SS11 my choice is option A "Retain the Green Belt"

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13304

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nicky Beesley

I&O_13823
I tried to complete the information on the local plan a number of days ago and found it to be unwieldy and confusing. I have since spoken to several neighbours who have said the same thing and I then saw a Facebook post by Councillor Elizabeth MacGlashan also saying the same thing and that she had resorted to emailing you at this address with her opinion so I thought I would do the same! I would like option A where we keep the Green Belt. I live on Guilden Sutton Lane and feel that building on that land would be a headache. The drainage on those fields is diabolical and years ago we were advised to concrete our floors as the water that was not draining away on the fields was seeping down to the hours and causing damp issues. The traffic on Guilden Sutton Lane is already too heavy for it’s size and there have been numerous accidents at the junction with the ring road and also a little further on at Hoole roundabout and I feel more traffic from extra houses will make this even worse. The water pressure here is also very poor and we have had many problems with flooding under the road bridge over the last couple of years, and again more houses or buildings would only make this worse.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13305

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Charlish

I&O_13824
I am answering Question SS 11, my choice is to retain the green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13306

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Atkin

I&O_13825
I am opposed to development taking place in Chester's precious greenbelt. And any other greenbelt areas such as around Ellesmere Port where access to greenbelt amenity is vital to local residents. I have attempted to find a way of responding via the council website but find this is very difficult to navigate. So I am answering here to what I have been told is Question SS11. I choose Option A - Retain the Greenbelt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13312

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Swanson

I&O_13831
I am responding to question SS 11 – Option C.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 13322

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Basnett

I&O_13841
I really appreciated Gillian Edwards getting involved with the proposed planning development in the Cuddington area at the Delamere clubhouse on Wednesday 27th August. My name is Stephen Basnett and I have lived in both Cuddinton and Norley for the past 40 years. I opposed the proposed planning and I vote option A to retain the green belt. Building on the green belt will see expensively priced homes that will serve to make developers financially successful but will destroy many of wild areas around where I live. Cuddington is already at over  capacity with limited places at schools, doctors, dentists etc. and should remain a local rural  village as opposed to being developed / transformed into a large built up town. It has already seen major housing development in recent years and it is time to stop developers profiteering from building on the green belt. Thank you for considering my concerns and I trust that the plans will be opposed by CWAC.

Comment

Representation ID: 13343

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Manor Park)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_13862


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

Comment

Representation ID: 13358

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ashlea O'Neill

I&O_13877
I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed large-scale residential development on Green Belt land in and around Parkgate and Neston. As a local resident and business professional, I am deeply concerned about the irreversible damage this development would cause to our community, environment, and infrastructure. Parkgate and Neston are small rural towns, surrounded by modest villages, all of which are defined by their limited infrastructure and tranquil character. These areas are cherished for their natural beauty, heritage, and community spirit—qualities that would be severely compromised by a development of this scale. I am responding specifically to Question SS11 in the consultation and wish to register my support for: Option A – Retain the Green Belt The proposed development is not only inappropriate in scale but also logistically unfeasible. The road infrastructure in and around Neston and Parkgate is extremely limited, with narrow access routes that are already under pressure. The area is geographically constrained: bordered by the Dee Estuary to the west, and further narrowed by restricted road access to the north-west and south-east. These limitations make any significant expansion impractical, and there is no realistic scope to upgrade the transport network to accommodate the demands of a development of this magnitude. Furthermore, the promise of affordable housing is fundamentally at odds with the commercial realities of large-scale developers. These companies operate under strict profit expectations to satisfy investors and shareholders, which limits their flexibility in pricing, housing mix, and community integration. In practice, this leads to a proliferation of high-value executive homes that do not reflect local need, while genuinely affordable housing remains a token gesture. The result is a flooded housing market that artificially inflates property values, pricing out local families, young adults, and the elderly—those who have shaped and sustained this community for generations. The council, meanwhile, is left with limited leverage to negotiate meaningful outcomes, as only a handful of large developers are willing to take on projects of this scale. This imbalance strips the council of its ability to enforce fair ratios or community-focused planning, ultimately leading to poor choices and poor outcomes for the local area. A more sensitive and sensible alternative would be to focus on existing unused or underutilized areas. For example, the block on Brook Street in Neston is unlikely to be revived as viable commercial premises (with the possible exception of the Barbers, whose tenancy status is questionable given the management company’s poor historical practices). This site would be ideal for affordable town-style houses, or a thoughtful mix of over-60s flats and general apartments. Small-scale developments like this are key to attracting the right kind of developers—those who are not driven by excessive profit margins, but who are willing to work collaboratively with the council and local residents to create housing that genuinely meets the needs and sensitivities of the area. An affordable home is not defined by costing slightly less than a 4–5 bedroom detached house in the same development. It is defined by its accessibility to those earning average local salaries, working on minimum wage, or living within the constraints of the local economy. True affordability must consider mortgage rates, rental prices, cost of living, and both current and future demand. Only small-scale developments and smaller, community-minded developers can deliver this. The Council and Government must recognize this reality, rather than blindly pursuing blanket housing targets that pressure local authorities into a building frenzy. The consequences of such rushed, oversized developments are dire and often irreparable: environmental degradation, loss of local ecology, economic imbalance, fragmentation of existing communities, and deepening segregation between wealth classes. Financially, the fallout is just as severe—developer contributions often dissipate, council tax revenues fall short of projections, business rate income declines, and the demand for social services surges beyond capacity. The Government has made it clear that local councils must manage their budgets without increased support from central government. But they show little concern for whether constituents suffer, as long as housing targets are met. I urge you not to follow this misguided path. Protect our town. Protect our community. Protect our countryside.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13365

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Hannington

SS 11
I&O_13884
I am writing in response to the current local plan consultation for Chester. I wish to register my strong support for Option A – Retaining the Green Belt around Chester. I only support Option A in it's entirety and no hybridity of any other options. It is important to remember that green belts are vital to the area, the environment and to the wellbeing of people, as the provide a natural space away from urban areas. Any considerations to build on these areas are frankly ridiculous and the Council should be embarrassed that they are even suggesting it.  The Council should be doing all that they can to protect these areas so that future generations can enjoy them and should look at maximising the use of brownfield sites and opportunities to redevelop current urban areas.  I urge the council to do the right thing by protecting our precious countryside. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13366

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alex Birch

I&O_13885
I am answering Question SS11 and my choice is Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13377

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Felicity Taylor

I&O_13896
There would be potential benefits to both Chester and Winsford taking somewhat greater shares of development than currently suggested. Therefore, I support the adoption of Option B as the basis for the plan but with reservations.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13389

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Trust

I&O_13908
Weaverham Trust Supports Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13420

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carolyn Beamson

I&O_13939
I am writing to comment on SS8 spatial strategy options, especially with regard to Sandiway and Cuddington. I have lived in this area for 25 years and travel locally by bicycle (push bike and electric).  I support Option A because I think the facilities in the village are sufficient for the existing population, (although the local surgery is now closed).   I did use the train and bus services when working in Chester but the inconvenience and paucity of the service, e.g. last bus from Chester to Northwich before 6 pm and no buses on Sundays means I use my car when needing to travel outside of the limited hours or transport more items than I can carry in my panniers. I have noticed that road traffic has become denser over the years in the quieter roads that I prefer to use, although most drivers are more considerate nowadays because of the recent rules regarding giving cyclists a wide berth when overtaking, (although it means drivers accelerate on the wrong side of the road to overtake me on blind corners).  I also cycle on the shared cycle lane/pavement where it is present on the A556 bypassing Northwich which is currently badly maintained and, in any case, is it is unpleasant to be so close to traffic travelling at speeds in excess of 60 mph. Even if the cycles lanes and public transport were to be improved, on account of extra housing developments, the Council documents appear to accept that car use would not be decreased in areas like Cuddington and Sandiway.  This would put more pressure on local roads with more congestion, the quality of the roads would deteriorate faster (already the potholes cause drivers and cyclists to swerve suddenly) and there is limited parking when public transport users arrive in their cars at the departure points eg Cuddington Station.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13426

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katharine Porter

I&O_13945
I am writing in answer to question SS11 and my choice is Option A, Retain the Green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13437

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_13956
Harworth notes that while the Council suggests each of the three growth options could accommodate at least 29,000 dwellings - potentially meeting the minimum housing needs over a 15-year period according to the standard method - further evidence is needed to substantiate whether this is realistically achievable. Moreover, any of the growth options must also align with the Council’s commitment to delivering 149 hectares of employment land, as outlined in the Economic Needs Assessment. This figure is critical for ensuring that sufficient land is available to support job creation, economic development, and local businesses. However, the ability to meet both housing and employment land requirements within the chosen spatial strategy will depend on a more robust assessment of the land supply and infrastructure readiness across the Borough. At this stage, Harworth does not deem it appropriate or feasible to determine which of the proposed spatial strategy options is most suitable, as further evidence is required to evidence that CWAC claim that all three options can meet the identified need is realistically achievable. This includes detailed studies into the availability of land for development, infrastructure capacity, and the suitability of different areas to support the anticipated growth. Notwithstanding that, Harworth believes that any approach that does not involve a level of Green Belt release is unlikely to be appropriate. Such an approach is unlikely to adequately address local housing and employment needs within the Borough, and could result in an unsustainable spatial strategy. Ultimately Harworth urges the Council to ensure that whichever spatial strategy is chosen provides sufficient housing and employment sites to meet the needs housing and employment needs for the borough and that of Middlewich.

Comment

Representation ID: 13466

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Melanie Bradley

I&O_13985
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). 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13489

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Linda Watts

I&O_14008
Question SS 11 and that my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13495

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: David Quayle

I&O_14014
My selection for the option to which is the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester is: OPTION A - Retain the Greenbelt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13501

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Ian & Janet Schofield

I&O_14020
I am writing in regard to issue SS 11 and to express my strong preference for  Option A . My husband and I have lived in Oscroft for 45 years, and we feel very strongly that the  Green Belt land must be protected from development . It plays a vital role in preserving the character and environment of our local area. I do not believe there is a justified need for such a high number of new homes in Cheshire. The roads are already severely congested - journeys into Chester take significantly longer than they used to, and even leaving our driveway has become increasingly difficult due to the volume of traffic. Adding more homes and cars will only worsen the situation. Access to local healthcare is another concern. It is already extremely challenging to secure a GP appointment, often involving long waits or spending extended periods on the phone. Our local surgery is struggling to cope as it is, and additional patients would place even greater strain on already stretched resources. On this note, a few years ago we had to pay for Private Healthcare for my husband and it was only from this that we found out he had a serious heart condition. There are also serious concerns about infrastructure. The drainage systems in the area are inadequate and unable to support further development. The continued flooding on Church Street in Kelsall, due to recent housing developments, is a clear example. Cheshire’s countryside and farmland are part of what makes the area so special. Sadly, we have watched this disappear over the years. The Green Belt must be preserved - it provides essential green space, supports biodiversity, and maintains the rural character of our communities. What we need is to  protect this green space , not cover it with more housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 13505

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Swain

I&O_14024
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. 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: 13508

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Mcneal

CUD02, CUD03
I&O_14027
We have lived on Delamere Park in Cuddington for 47 years. The Park was built on the site of a former country estate which fell into disrepair, was then used as an army camp and later, a Polish camp after WW 2. The site was sensitively developed without encroaching on the surrounding green belt land. We believe this was a good use of a neglected site which enhanced the area. However, the option to develop the area on green belt land to the east of Delamere Park would have a negative effect on the locality. The narrow country roads are not suitable for construction or an increase in general traffic especially as there are no footpaths from here to the surrounding villages. The village shops with its limited parking space would not be able to cope with the increased demand . The existing green belt provides access to nature for both residents and wildlife. Extending existing built up areas , which may be better to access , with mixed development could provide housing, retail opportunities and jobs. We , therefore, support Option A (CUD02/CUD03) to retain the Green Belt in this area.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13512

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Karen Goodwin

NOR10, NOR11, NOR12
I&O_14031
I am emailing you with regards to the proposed housing areas surrounding Acton Bridge village. (NOR10, NOR11, NOR12) In answer to question SS 11, I would like choose Option A-  Retaining Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13532

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Oliver Otway

I&O_14051
I would like to vote for  option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13534

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Moran

I&O_14053
my clear preference would be for Option B. This enables decisions on the zoning of land earmarked for future development to follow the existing Neighbourhood Plan which have been developed with care and much thought. 

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13537

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Smith

I&O_14056
Based upon sight of the consultation map, proposing a number new houses to Cuddington and Sandiway areas and east of Delamere Park my vote and objection would be as follows: My preference is that all green belt land be kept for agricultural land . However if building is absolutely essential under national plans then I would go for option B- limiting the builds to 500 houses and in line with the old local and neighbourhood development plans. Option C is NOT acceptable as there is no real transport facility that can be relied upon Not even a bus within 3/4 of a mile from our home ,the only trains are 1 per hour from Cuddington station  which is 1 1/4 hour commute to Manchester , and local roads and lanes are already congested . Adding more traffic would create more problems.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13538

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Daisy Miller

I&O_14057
I choose option A- to retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13540

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Greg Chambers

I&O_14059
We live in Farndon and wish to object to the proposed further development at Sibbersfield Lane. Sibbersfield Lane is particularly ill suited to further development due to the high volume / high speed of traffic in what is a rural area in any case. Speaking more generally, if more development is to take place on the main road between Farndon and Chester, significant money will need to be spent on the highway linking the two. It is ill suited to the volume of traffic that already use the road, and that is without further development. We understand that 3 options are available and would vote in favour of the option with the least houses (which we understand to be option C) to be developed in the immediate vicinity of Farndon.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 13542

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Richardson

I&O_14061


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13546

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Clark

I&O_14065
With regard to Options A, B and C, I strongly believe that there must be releases from the Green Belt to enable the new housing numbers to be met. Without such releases the impact upon some of the smaller Key Service Centres will be devastating.

Comment

Representation ID: 13547

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Martin

I&O_14066
I would like to put forward a vote for the proposed planning for the triangle of land bordered by Liverpool Road, Moston Road, Kingsmead, Daleside and Demage Lane.  Along with other surrounding areas to the North of Chester.  I would like to vote for Option A - To leave the Green Belt to the North of Chester as it is.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt