Comment

Representation ID: 13553

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Swain

I&O_14072
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: 13555

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ollie Pod

I&O_14074
I am answering question SS 11 Option A) Retain the greenbelt  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13558

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lynne E Smith

I&O_14077
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 B - Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development

Comment

Representation ID: 13561

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Greenwood Group Ltd

Agent: Plan:8 Town Planning Ltd

I&O_14080
Recommendation: The Council should pursue Option B or C, both of which recognize the need for strategic Green belt release and appropriately direct growth to sustainable locations like Willaston.

Comment

Representation ID: 13570

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hayley and Lee Johnson

I&O_14089
I would like to submit my and my husband’s vote for Option B. Open countryside needs to be protected as well as Green Belt. There are plenty of Brownfield sites that can and should be developed on before in use agricultural land. The current government’s building plans state that building should be in the interest of future generations. If we keep building on farmland, we may be able to house them but we lose our ability to control where our food is from and grown, the quality of produce and meat.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 13583

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony Frampton Rawling

I&O_14102
My comment relates to question SS11, and my option would be A.   

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13601

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jack Hardman

I&O_14120
Green spaces are so vital to our future and our children’s future, these spaces create an essential habitat for wildlife that are on the brink of survival. Swifts, swallows and house martins fly all the way from Africa to their nesting sites on this Particular land if they can’t find their nesting sites they perish! Heartbreaking! Green spaces are vital for mental health and Physical health. There’s a fine balance that needs to be respected. This area has already lost green belt land to the Wrexham Rd development. This has caused destruction of wildlife like birds of prey nesting site, bats and newts to name a few. Look at the mass amount of flooding that has happened and KEEPS happening around the kings school due to the development there. This planned estate will have more issues as it is closer to the runoff and it is clear by evidence that new developers have yet to establish better solutions which will again result in mass flooding. Huge disruption to our road networks and facilities like pharmacies and schools. Noise nuisance due to building works is noted in Barony way. Building on this site in any form is a HUGE flood risk to the residents in Barony way and other areas. Maintaining the green belt helps reduce flood risk to our properties close by. Building on green belt makes our planet hotter!

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13605

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Martin

I&O_14124
We 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. We live at [address redacted] and have done for nearly 30 years.  We would like to vote for Option A - To leave the greenbelt to the North of Chester as it is.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13623

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Barratt

I&O_14142
Regarding the consultation on building on Greenbelt land in Cheshire, I would like to voice my opinion on question SS 11 and state that my choice is for option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13633

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lisa Woodhouse

I&O_14152
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: 13634

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sara Hunter

I&O_14153
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: 13636

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Weedall

I&O_14155
I prefer option A retain the Green Belt. It is short sighted to start using green belt now, given climate change. The green belt sites need to be maintained to protect the environment, grow crops to feed the UK population and to help with natural drainage to avoid flood. There are brownfield sites that should be used first. These should be cleaned up and used. It’s too easy for builders to develop pristine green fields and leave sites decaying in towns. We should be protecting the environment and wildlife, not destroying it needlessly. If Option A is not viable, then Option B is acceptable. Our Neighbourhood Plan, supported by >95% of residents' votes in 2019, is very much still 'active' and explicitly 93% of respondents agreed that development in greenbelt and countryside should be resisted. Our Vision for the Parish: "Cuddington seeks to be a vibrant community-centred Parish which retains and enhances its historic and rural village character". We have built more than our target 200 homes in the current Local Plan period within the Key Service Centre. Census data (2011-2021), shows that the Parish population grew ay 16% (to 6,196), it also shows that the housing stock grew at a faster rate of 19% (to 2686 hoes), so the Parish does not have a housing need. Development should not negatively impact upon the internal townscape views and external landscape vistas identified within the Vistas and Views Map. To make it viable, the train line between Cuddington and Manchester/Chester needs to be upgraded. The Village needs a GP, additional primary school capacity and a secondary school. The roads need improving. The A49 is prone to flooding, so the drainage needs to be improved. Option C is not acceptable. Cuddington and sandiway has insufficient amenities to cope with additional housing. Public transport is poor. There is an hourly bus service to Northwich, otherwise it is reliance on a dial-a-bus or the weekly bus service from Delamere Park. Cuddington station has hourly trains to Manchester ( 1 hour 7 min) and Chester (21 mins). It is a non-electrified, single-tracked line (in places). The current train operator does not have to call at Cuddington ( but does). Extra trains cannot run unless the track is upgraded to a double-track. Parking at the station is no longer free, further disincentivising use of the train. Outside of the main A556 and A49 the roads are poor, they are winding, single car width with passing spaces in several places. Cars and farm vehicles struggle to pass each other. The A49 floods under heavy rain, so drainage needs to be improved not worsened with additional building. The village is already close to, or at, capacity for Primary School places, and parking. The Parish does not have a doctor, nor a secondary school. The extra homes would place an additional burden on the GPs in Northwich and Weaverham. It’s already impossible to get an appointment. The additional traffic transporting children to schools, accessing doctors and getting to work all outside of the area will not only create traffic chaos but is environmentally a mistake. The land should be used to protect the environment, for agriculture to feed people, and for protecting wildlife. Building new houses in a flood plain when heavy rain is becoming more frequent is illogical.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13638

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Aislinn Cooper

SS 11
I&O_14157
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 Merseyside and Chester 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 in places. 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 are being planned to meet any demand from new housing. 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: 13639

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Stephen Ashley

I&O_14158
I would strongly like to put forward my objection to the above planning proposal.   My thoughts surrounding this objection are as follows.   Green belt  Impact on the wildlife and habitat loss excessive impact on the local infrastructure Prime Agricultural land  Threat to Village life  Removal of rural area and landscape

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13640

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Harrow Estates

NEP02
I&O_14159
Please see enclosed Harrow Estate’s submission in support of Site NEP02 as a mixed-use allocation, in relation to the above consultation. The submission supports the recognition of the Site in the Spatial Strategy growth options B and C, detailed in chapter 5.  Option B – Follow current Local Plan level and distribution of development Option C – Sustainable transport corridors The submission contains a high-level Concept Plan demonstrating the Site’s capability to provide a landscape led, mixed-use tenure residential development with a sizable employment area to support the growth of existing employment area surrounding the site, and Clayhill Industrial Estate. The Concept Plan has been informed by the Constraints and Opportunities Plan, also contained within the submission.

Comment

Representation ID: 13648

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Vicky Southern

I&O_14167
The answer is Option A, retain the green belt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13653

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Tunnicliffe

I&O_14172
Option A - Protection of the Green Belt - (Triangle of land bordering Liverpool Road, Moston Road, Kingsmead, St. Christopher's Close, Daleside, Demage Lane) I am writing to express my concern regarding the ongoing pressures on our local Green Belt land for the potential use of mixed use development. The Green Belt plays a vital role in protecting our countryside & preserving wildlife habitats. It is therefore very important that this land is safeguarded for present and future generations. Once built on, the Green Belt is lost forever. I understand the need for new housing, but I strongly believe that development should be directed towards previously used land (brownfield sites) rather than sacrificing Green Belt areas. There are often opportunities for regeneration and redevelopment of existing sites that can meet housing needs without damaging our natural environment. I kindly urge the Council to prioritise sustainable development by protecting the Green Belt and focusing housing provision on brownfield land wherever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 13654

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Leather

I&O_14173
Option A- Keep GREENBELT

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13657

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Hair

I&O_14176
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: 13670

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hugh Jones

I&O_14189


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13677

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Ashley

I&O_14197


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13678

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Debbie Taylor

I&O_14198


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13682

Received: 02/09/2025

Respondent: Teresa Cox

I&O_14202
My choice is Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13684

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Evelyn Gates

I&O_14204
I strongly  prefer  option A wich is to preserve the existing  green belt. The wild life which  includes  bats and newts pheasants and  many more, will be wiped out. We are built  half way  down  a hill and when it rains  heavy the water  from the field  at the back  floods our garden,  running  down the path and onto the lane. It's  clay and  doesn't  drain  very well. There are no buses on the route, to get to town you have to  cross  an old  one way bridge,  wich is always  closed for  repair.  The school  and doctors  and dentist  are already  full. Hough Lane is very  narrow and  quite  dangerous  at times. I strongly  appose  these plans . I prefer  option  A  to keep the  existing  green  belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13685

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Anne Mather

I&O_14205
I support option A to retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13718

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Guilden Sutton Parish Council

I&O_14238
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13737

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr S. A Henshall

I&O_14257
With the lack of infrastructure put in place for the Wrexham Road Development, impacting the traffic into Chester, doctors, schools and real chance of the area flooding , how can more houses be considered at this time . Surely the infrastructure should be put into place before any more development is made. The fact there are only two bridges into Chester means it is hard enough to get into town and support local businesses with the current amount of traffic. What happened to the Western Relief Road ?  We need some green spaces leaving for the environment and for everyone's mental health and wellbeing. Aren't there Brown Belt areas that can be used.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13741

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Anne Tunnicliffe

I&O_14261


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13747

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Danielle Ashworth

I&O_14267
To conclude we are responding to question SS11, our only choice is Option A to retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13749

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gabriel Duckett

I&O_14269
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt