Comment

Representation ID: 13992

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Whiteway

I&O_14512
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: 13993

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alan Jemmett

I&O_14514
Proposal for 5000 new houses all around northwich and surrounding area. Including 1700 north of barnton, I do not want greenbelt built upon, so I prefer option A.    There is no reason to build on greenbelt, brownfield sites and failed commercial properties and town centre should be redeveloped. It might be easier and more profitable for construction companies to build on greenbelt but it destroys green ares and wildlife for future generations, the council serves the community and its rich heritage in farming, green belt should be the last resort, there are lots of other brownfield sites that should be developed first.    

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 13999

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachael Bourne

I&O_14526
If one option presented to us absolutely had to be picked I would pick option b. I caveat this however ,with the fact that I still think 500 houses is far too much for a village like Farndon. Farndon has already seen 4 large housing developments in the last 10 years, and is nearing capacity in terms of infrastructure and services . I think the figure for housing in Farndon needs to be revised down from 500 homes. I think 500 homes would have a hugely detrimental impact on a village like Farndon in terms of its impact on the road network and its safety (1000 extra cars) , on the primary school (already at near capacity) an extra potential 1000 children, (based on a average number of 2 children per household) , and the impact on GP services,  potentially 2000 extra people accessing the Village Surgeries Group which is already stretched and at capacity.  In addition to this the gas and electricity network and the sewage network all need to be explored. It was built to serve a small village. It already experiences regular power cuts, particularly when it rains the entire power goes out in Farndon.  This should all be investigated before Farndon is allocated any housing numbers.  Option A would cripple Farndon, and the infrastructure and services. 1500 would turn Farndon from a village into a town without any services or infrastructure to support this. 

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

Comment

Representation ID: 14010

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Rodd

I&O_14547
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 55 11* my choice is: *Option A - Retain the Green Bet*  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14014

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn White

I&O_14551
My answer to question SS 11 is Option A - retain green belt. Use brown belt!  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14015

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Deakin

I&O_14552
The main point is that we should be protecting green belt land at all cost. You should be selecting option A, that is my preference.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14037

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Heather Clifford

NOR01
I&O_14574
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.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14038

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Landowner (Cogshall Lane)

Agent: Carden Group

I&O_14575


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

Comment

Representation ID: 14051

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Birkett

I&O_14588
Something has to give if we need more housing....some of the 42% green belt will have to be sacrificed if we are not to overcrowd and overload the other areas. Option C provides a better distribution of housing with closer links/opportunities to travel to potential employment locations.  

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 14060

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Caroline Hall

I&O_14603
I believe option A - carrying forward and updating the current Local Plan objectives is the right way forward and therefore spatial strategy option B should be maintained.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 14068

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Davies

I&O_14611
Option B with some limited development along Sustainable transport corridors(Option C)

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

Comment

Representation ID: 14100

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Upton-by-Chester and District Parish Council

I&O_14643
Upton-by-Chester & District Parish Council are not in a position to select one of the three options for the appropriate spatial strategy, based on the Neighbourhood Plan. However, the following are relevant: Green Belt: In the Upton-by-Chester & District Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030 (UNP), the principle of development of the Countess of Chester Hospital and Chester Zoo, both within the Green Belt are supported with regard to the Countess of Chester Hospital for medical purposes, and the Zoo for zoological purposes. Dale Barracks: Specific development of the Dale Barracks site, in the Green Belt, should it become available for development, is covered in Policy D1 of the Upton-by-Chester & District Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030 (UNP) Housing: Policy H1 of the Upton-by-Chester & District Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2030 (UNP), states that large-scale housing development (10 or more dwellings on an area of 0.3 HA or more) would only be supported only on the Site of the Dale Barracks, or in exceptional cases, to meet an identified community need. Small-scale housing development will be supported in principle, provided that it is environmentally sustainable and not located in the Green Belt. Sustainable transport: Policies T1-T5 state that development that reduces car usage and congestion on the local road network will be supported. Any development that results in a significant increase in congestion to risks to road safety will not be supported. Conditions related to pedestrian and cyclists, parking, provision of electric charging points and cycle parking are included.

Comment

Representation ID: 14112

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Josie Owen

I&O_14655
My answer is option A to retain the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14116

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Martin Helps

5.7
I&O_14659
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14121

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqueline McLannahan

I&O_14664
#NAME?

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14127

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Goodwin

I&O_14670
Please find below our comments on the above being in support of Option A , The Retention of the Green Belt, as regards the indicative sites in Chester East i.e. Hare Lane, Belle Vue Lane and School Lane,Guilden Sutton: Transport Connectivity The development of any of the indicative sites as indicated in Options B and C  would add a significant burden to the already constrained road layout: a.the existing development already produces severe congestion where Guilden Sutton Lane meets the A41 ring road . This junction services local traffic (residential and employment users) and is used as a short cut for commuters from and to Cheshire East, Stoke on Trent and the Wirral. There are existing "pinch points" through the Pipers Ash hamlet with cars parked on the street. Hare Lane and Belle Vue Lane are used as short cuts by HGV's and commuters from Chester and the Wirral en route to Stoke on Trent and Cheshire East throughout the working week and at weekends.The lanes are too narrow to accomodate additional traffic. The volume of existing traffic already creates queues at the junction of Hare Lane and the A51 Tarvin Road (by Chester Rugby Club). This is exacerbated both during and outside of the rugby season (when car boot sales are held) and cars are double parked on Hare Lane. Any new development and further increase in traffic would not be compatible with the existing users of these lanes i.e commuters, HGV's, agricultural vehicles, horseboxes, caravans (the Belle Vue Lane Farm camping and caravan site), tractors and larger agricultural vehicles during the growing season. Belle Vue and Hare Lane are extensively used as walking routes for health, exercise and leisure purposes together with local cyclicts and cycling clubs from beyond Chester who wish to avoid the dangerous and heavily congested roads around the city. The A51 Tarvin Road road is already heavily congested throughout the week and weekends with traffic regularly queueing between Tarvin/Stamford Bridge and the A55/ A51/ring road roundabout.  Adding more traffic onto this road would create safety issues .The existing ribbon development along Tarvin Road prohibits road improvements being carried out to a sufficient scale to overcome the issues associated with the additional traffic. Protecting the Rural Character a.The development of any of the indicative sites would result in the loss of valuable agricultural land and loss of wildlife habitats. The developers of valuable greenfield sites would lobby to develop mid to high value homes to meet high land prices, meet s.106 highway improvement payments and maximise their profits. The development delivered would therefore produce inappropriate high density development which would not protect the rural character of the area. The new homes would also not deliver starter homes in the right location or at a price level which first time buyers could afford. The indicative sites are not sustainable. Small scale development proposals on Belle Vue Lane have previously been refused by the local planning authority on the grounds of them not being in a sustainable location. Nothing has changed in the local area to change this i.e. no public transport improvements including the links to Chester railway station. In conclusion we are of the opinion that Options B and C for sites to the east of Chester would not protect the rural character of the area, would result in a loss of valuable wildlife habitats and would place an increased strain on the existing highway network. In addition the physical constraints of existing developments limits the potential to improve the highway network to a sufficient level which would address both the existing congestion and traffic generated by any additional development .

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14147

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs D L Hall

I&O_14691
Option A - Retain the green belt. Acton Bridge is not a straightforward case for planning large scale housing developments. It has a very small railway station with already inadequate parking.  On a daily basis, numerous cars are parked on the surrounding road causing disturbance and in many cases obstruction of the main road leading to the station.   The village is already used as a cut through rat-run by commuters using the A49, the roads within and surrounding the village are narrow and have limited footpaths, they are already hazardous for walkers and cyclists as there are numerous farm vehicles along with HGV's accessing agricultural facilities.  The rail station has wholly inadequate parking and access plus is place adjacent to a bridge, sharp bend and junction. To add significant volume to of traffic and people to this environment will need significant road infrastructure replacement with huge disruption for little benefit should housing developments be incepted where indicated on the draft plan.  To lose the current nature of the village, which is used by many as a place to visit walk and cycle removes a significant benefit to a wider community when there could be locations more suited to progressive development.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14153

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katie Wakefield

I&O_14697
I would like to share my views regarding the proposed new housing plans in Cheshire. In particular, I wish to express my strong concerns regarding the potential new housing developments in Acton Bridge, where I live (Option C). While I recognise the need for new housing, Acton Bridge is not an appropriate location for large-scale development. The proposal appears primarily based on the railway station, but in reality, public transport in the village is poor with an infrequent bus service. Acton Bridge lacks amenities, such as shops, schools and a GP practice, required to support a substantial new population. Therefore, a large development would place additional strain on neighbouring villages, where services are already stretched. Without these amenities in walking distance, a car would be essential for new residents, increasing traffic on already narrow, busy roads. For example, the bridge over the railway could pose a safety risk if traffic is significantly increased . Furthermore, I feel strongly that the green belt should be preserved. Cheshire's countryside is a defining feature of the area, supporting biodiversity and the rural surroundings that is important to residents. A large-scale housing development in Acton Bridge would permanently change the village, in a way that is not beneficial in the long term. Therefore, I urge you to consider locating new housing in areas better supported by existing infrastructure, amenities, and sustainable transport links, rather than small rural villages such as Acton Bridge. I hope that these views and concerns are considered when reviewing new housing in Cheshire.

Comment

Representation ID: 14155

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Ford

I&O_14699
Great Boughton - Option A,

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14163

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Winder

I&O_14707
Please accept this as my response to proposed planning at Acton bridge Cheshire . In response to Ss11 I select option A retain the green belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14164

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gail Rosa

I&O_14708
I strongly feel that the area should be retained as it is in line with Option A This would retain the green belt land for agriculture and wildlife. In so doing the beauty of the landscape , wildlife and a village community would be preserved.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14167

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms S Cox

I&O_14711
#NAME?

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14172

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gavin Ball

I&O_14716
I wish to register my support for  Option A – retaining the Green Belt around Barnton . The Green Belt plays an essential role in protecting our communities and should be safeguarded for the following reasons: Protecting Countryside and Village Character The Green Belt prevents urban sprawl and ensures Barnton and neighbouring settlements retain their individual identity, preserving the rural character and heritage of the area. Environmental and Climate Benefits Green Belt land absorbs carbon, reduces air pollution, supports biodiversity, and helps manage flood risk. Protecting it contributes directly to the council’s climate change and sustainability commitments. Health and Wellbeing Access to green spaces provides vital opportunities for recreation, walking, and wellbeing. These open landscapes contribute significantly to quality of life for residents. Agricultural and Food Security Value Much of this land is productive farmland. Retaining it supports local agriculture and strengthens long-term food security. Sustainable Development Principles National planning policy requires that Green Belt land is only released in exceptional circumstances. Housing need should first be met through brownfield redevelopment and regeneration of underused sites in more sustainable, well-connected locations. Community Support There is clear local opposition to the large-scale loss of Green Belt. Protecting these areas builds public confidence in the planning process and safeguards valued landscapes for future generations. For these reasons, I strongly support  Option A  and urge the council to prioritise regeneration and brownfield development over Green Belt release.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14184

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Angela Kendell

I&O_14728
my choice is option A to retain the green belt. Every village accepts that new houses need to be built but if we use green belt and farming land we change the fundamentals of the county. The children should still be able to enjoy green spaces and access to see farms and farm animals. People purchased houses in villages because that was the childhood they remember or that is the premium they have paid to raise their children. If we expand the villages to such a size they become towns and fundamentally change in character. Any additional housing needs to bring with it the support for amenities also. Consideration should be made to regenerate brown sites and the vast number of properties laying empty in the county before reaching to the green belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14185

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Ranchev

I&O_14729
Option A - Retain the Green Belt  I oppose the build due to the following: Adding to traffic congestion which is already ridiculous. Not adequate public transport/ medical services options for increased population this side of river Loss of green space for Lache Ward residents. Impact on wildlife which has already been impacted by current developments. Building on a flood plain which has already caused issues due to the current development Build on brown sites instead.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14204

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Wilson

I&O_14748
I object to houses being built on green belt land in CWaC. We need to preserve our green spaces and building on green or grey belt is not acceptable.   This is in response to question SS11 and my choice is Option A retain the green belt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14210

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Audrey Mellor

I&O_14754
I know we need to keep as much natural environment as possible. So my answer to Question SS 11 and that your choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14211

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Bevan

I&O_14755
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: 14224

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14768
B although I would prefer A

Comment

Representation ID: 14317

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kelly Gilmartin

I&O_14861
We are ruining our country side and once it’s been built upon we cannot bring it back.   We have unsold houses in and around our village, many have been vacant for some time. There are affordable and high end houses,  so why more?   Roads and infrastructure cannot cope please object and accept my firm rejection of this plan.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt