Comment

Representation ID: 14382

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Georgina Hughes

I&O_14926
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. 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: 14388

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Mills

I&O_14932
Of the three strategies you have proposed, A= Green Belt preservation B= 2023 Local Plan principles, C= Transport Corridor, I feel that plan C is by far the best option given even though this may result in some infringement onto the Green Belt. I would question the clustering methodology that you have used which presupposes a natural objection to infringing on the Green Belt, thus favouring option A. Given that the Green Belt occupies much of the north of the county and none of the centre / south and that Cheshire is a rural/ agricultural county anyway, I actually think that the Green Belt seems pretty arbitrary and that the infringement of green spaces is less with rejecting option A. Moreover, option C favours "greener" transport options i.e. it makes the choice to take Public Transport much easier, if new housing is located close to those routes.

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 14393

Received: 04/09/2025

Respondent: Helen Dover

I&O_14937
SS11 - Retain the green belt There will be none left otherwise, we moved here for a reason to enjoy the countryside and quieter area. Doctors and schools already flooded. Plenty of places to build on grey sites in towns and cities (Chester / Northwich)

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14395

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Eluned Ward

I&O_14939
Option A - Retain the Green Belt 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14414

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Severine de Casson

I&O_14958
As a local resident, in response to Question SS 11 , I support the retention of the Green Belt. This is crucial to support local biodiversity and contain the ever increasing flooding in the area each year.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14444

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Deakin

I&O_14988
I choose OPTION A - RETAIN GREEN BELT.  I choose to retain open spaces and farmland, and to protect the environment and habitats within them.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14451

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Councillor Simon Eardley

I&O_14996
The Saughall & Mollington ward is entirely contained within the NW Cheshire green belt. This consultation process offers the opportunity to give a view as to ‘where development should be restricted.’ As now, and following consultation with every elector in the ward, there is an overwhelming opinion that the importance of the green belt should be respected and retained. Residents in the predominantly rural communities that make up the ward place significant value on the following principles:  The importance of the green belt in principle and practice – it is a key reason why many have chosen to live in the villages in which they reside The (ongoing) protection of the green belt in local planning policy The protection of open spaces and the countryside The protection and promotion of the natural and historic environment which is self-evident in the Saughall and Mollington ward owing to its character and make-up. When considering options for spatial development as outlined in this consultation (A,B or C), my view is that ‘Option A’ is the most appropriate solution for future policy development of the Local Plan, although there are clearly advantages and disadvantages to each consideration. I have outlined above my view around the importance of green belt land being protected because diminution of it will by implication fundamentally (and likely detrimentally) impact the character, distinctiveness and rural nature of the parishes of the ward when compared to the immediate urban neighbours of Chester and Ellesmere Port. There are likely to be other locations in the borough where development could be sustained on a more comprehensive scale, such as the town of Winsford where it has long been determined that there is ample scope for expansion and other considerations such as access to local transport infrastructure are strong and would make development sustainable as a result. Option B has, in my opinion, proven to be a prudent approach in the past. However, faced with increased targets from national government for development, it cannot be relied upon to offer sufficient and strong protection of the green belt which is of overarching importance to the residents I represent. This option suggests that if green belt land is to be ‘released’ and used for development, then importance should be attached to existing access to infrastructure and areas of sustainability. As I note elsewhere, each parish, save perhaps for Saughall, does not benefit from comprehensive and existing infrastructure to sustain development. Option C recognises the importance of ‘sustainable transport corridors’, which could be applied in a rural setting where options for public transport are often poor in comparison to the main towns, the city of Chester and their hinterland suburban areas. Applying this option to future development may give an unrealistic assessment of the reality of transport provision in a given area, its accessibility to existing and likely new communities and a false impression of sustainability when there are much wider considerations to take into account. I would suggest that access to transport is only one element to consider when determining the location of development and must be balanced by other considerations. It seems unreasonable to me to prioritise transport access in isolation to other factors. This option would likely result in large scale urbanisation in areas where that has never been the case before, solely based on one factor, when there are realistic options for development around existing urban areas which already benefit from services characteristic of sustainable development.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14477

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Zarina Kagan

I&O_15022
With regards to future planning in the village of Farndon, I support option B. for fewer houses in Farndon as the infrastructure will be unable to cope with the increased numbers of residents. The road system is already appalling, especially on the High Street, with congestion and dangerous junctions. The school is full, as is the local surgery. The electricity supply is oversubscribed and we have had numerous power cuts. I would be in favour of no more than 500 new houses.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 14489

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Brian Roberts

I&O_15034
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: 14503

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Edwards

I&O_15048
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt.   Please don’t let this irreplaceable landscape be sacrificed for short-term targets. Protect our wildlife, our heritage, and the community that has called this place home for generations.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14506

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jean Perchard

I&O_15052
My choice is Option A – Retain the Green Belt   We need space and fresh air to breathe. Thank you.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14507

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanna Bell

I&O_15053


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14508

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Zoe Glendinning

I&O_15054
We strongly reject plans for CUD05 cuddington and Sandiway) Option A is our strong view. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14532

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Nomads Football Club

I&O_15078
The Landowner is supportive of Options B and C, and believe a combined approach is most suitable to be developed for the emerging Local Plan. By pursuing this option, the spatial strategy could prioritise brownfield sites where available. As well as direct growth to those settlements where it is most appropriate. Both options will need to identify additional land, in particular in and around Chester, to meet the minimum housing requirement. The Council should consider the allocation of a range of sites, including enabling smaller sites to come forward, reducing the reliance on large urban extensions. A combined approach would enable sites to come forward that are deliverable, sustainable, balanced and defensible.

Comment

Representation ID: 14537

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jacqueline Moore

I&O_15083
I just wanted to register my concern about proposals to build on green belt areas, farm land and countryside around northwich and surrounding areas. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14545

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Jeanette Hough

I&O_15091
Retain the Greenbelt. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14548

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jenna Jones

I&O_15094
Taking the mandatory housing targets into consideration, I strongly urge the Council to consider Option A – the retention of Green Belt land. The Green Belt serves a vital function in preventing urban sprawl, protecting the character of our communities, and safeguarding natural habitats that support biodiversity. Once lost, Green Belt land cannot be recovered, and its removal would set a damaging precedent for further encroachment. Retaining this land aligns with both national and local planning policy objectives to prioritise sustainable development, protect open space, and ensure that housing and infrastructure needs are met in a way that does not undermine the long-term environmental, social, and health benefits the Green Belt provides, whilst also putting the wellbeing of our communities and our natural environment first.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14552

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julia Pickering

I&O_15098
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14564

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Nic Garwood

I&O_15110
Specifically, Option A is not viable for the South Cheshire villages. The small roads and village centres are already struggling, and there is minimal public transport. Farndon, for example, was cut off for significant parts of the year due to road closures. The current state of CWAC's roads is inadequate, leading to potential village sprawl and isolation of new residents from essential services. It is apparent that the transport infrastructure in the North of the County is better developed, with rail, road, and bus services. However, the North-South communication links are poor. The A41 is in a deplorable condition, and the Farndon to Chester Road has been reduced to 50 and 30 mph limits, likely due to safety concerns. The situation is exacerbated by infrequent and slow bus services. In Farndon, the village centre is often blocked, and public parking is virtually non-existent. This would become increasingly dangerous and untenable with further expansion. Therefore, the logical approach would be to develop around existing transport hubs and communication lines, until significant improvements to the South Cheshire rural areas' infrastructure are promised. I do not believe that the green belt should be entirely protected, although preventing uninspired urban sprawl is essential. Development should be human-centric and aesthetically pleasing. Large parts of the green belt are currently unattractive scrubland and could be developed responsibly. In summary, Options B and C could transform the green belt along the train lines and M56 corridor into thriving residential and business areas, providing excellent access to Liverpool, Manchester, airports, Chester, and beyond. For these reasons, large-scale development of the rural areas in the South of the County should be avoided, with small-scale developments, such as 30 houses, being more acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 14566

Received: 17/09/2025

Respondent: Chester Civic Trust

I&O_15112
The Council suggests that it is considering three different approaches on how to achieve its mandated housing targets for the County. The first of these, Option A, would proscribe any new development in the half of the County that is classed as greenbelt except in exceptional circumstances. For a variety of reasons, we feel that Option A is not an appropriate strategy to adopt. We would support following a hybrid approach of options B and C . In other words, a strategy that continues with the emphasis of the current local plan but with special attention being paid to concentration of new housing provision in sustainable locations close to existing transport hubs. Movement There is a strong belief in some quarters that Option C should have priority over where major developments are located. National strategy would see sustainable development along public transport corridors. It makes sense to place housing and employment sites where the links are very easy and convenient and can make various modes of public transport a seriously attractive alternative to the car. In this connection we feel that the obligation to collaborate with neighbouring authorities is absolutely vital and we note the forthcoming plan for devolution, and trust that possibilities such as a southwest cheshire transport/employment/housing hub that could be based on villages to either side of the border with Cheshire East on the main London-Crewe-Holyhead line. This might be an example of where the proposed sub-regional design unit could take the lead.

Comment

Representation ID: 14572

Received: 09/09/2025

Respondent: Julie Leigh

I&O_15118
I would like to choose option A Retain as Green Belt land

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14576

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Churton Parish Council

I&O_15122
A key principle for Churton PC is that a clear and obvious distinction between the settlements of Farndon and Churton should be maintained.  They are separate communities with their own distinctive characters.   Consequently, in considering potential development in Churton we clearly cannot ignore the options proposed for neighbouring Farndon.   Option A – retaining the Green Belt would put unacceptable development pressure on rural communities and could see an additional 1500 houses in Farndon over the next 15 years.  In our view that would completely overwhelm the existing village and would lead to entirely negative impacts – particularly on traffic, road safety and local services across a wide area. As a result of the recent growth in Farndon we are already experiencing much higher levels of traffic and speeding through Churton and this would only get worse under the high levels of growth proposed under Option A. Considering one of the primary roles of the green belt is “ to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment”  this option seems entirely inappropriate.   Open countryside, whilst not benefitting from the same level of protection as green belt,  should continue to be afforded more protection Option B - continuing the current local plan level and distribution of development – is Churton Parish Council’s preferred option .   Whilst this could still see significant new housing in our area we believe this option provides a more appropriate and sustainable balance of development across the main urban centres and their surrounding villages.  However we would still emphasise the need for any necessary infrastructure to be put in place in advance, or at least alongside, any new developments.    We acknowledge that some Green Belt release would be required but believe this can be achieved without fundamentally undermining the primary purposes of Green Belt policy ie. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. For example “grey belt” sites comprising previously developed land, and any other parcels of land that make a limited contribution to the aims of the green belt, should be brought forward for consideration. Option C – focusing development around sustainable transport corridors such as railway stations and major bus routes – also has its merits and could help reduce reliance on car journeys for commuting.    We understand that following this option in its entirety would require further green belt release however we believe it could provide some alternative options worthy of consideration alongside Option B in order to achieve the required level of housing provision. 

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

Comment

Representation ID: 14583

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Roderick

I&O_15129
2) We wish the existing local plan to be maintained and  do not wish to have any of the suggested plans (A,B or C) forced upon CWaC. 3) Failing this we would prefer that Option B  is adopted. The Green Belt has got to be reduced to allow for extra development if this number of dwellings is to be fitted in to CWaC. If this does not happen the rural areas, that the Green Belt should be a gateway to, become the suburbia for the towns and the Green Belt becomes the only non developed areas! Green Belt development is the only logical solution if the desired aims of reducing environmental impact, carbon reduction and giving priority to transport methods such as walking, cycling, public transport is to be adopted. These aims are near impossible to meet when people are housed far away from work & commerce centres and have to travel from scattered communities on limited and insubstantial transport links. The Green Belt was an admirable solution to the issues of 90 years ago but needs to be adjusted to allow for the demands of the massive increase in population that is being forced upon us over the last 20 years and in to the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 14603

Received: 05/09/2025

Respondent: Catherine Mechan

I&O_15153
I regard Option A as the most appropriate spatial strategy: Retain the Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14613

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes, Diane Martin, Peter Martin & Brunel Trustees Limited

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_15163
Under all three options, Northwich is proposed to accommodate at least 5,000 dwellings. This is logical because Northwich is a key settlement in the borough and under any scenario it should be a significant focus for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 14641

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrews

I&O_15191
Whichever places the environment closer to the top of the decision making process.  Or at least gives it more priority.  Just stop with the environmental destruction.  Some clever planning can INCORPORATE IT AND MAINTAIN IT.  I thought the current Local Plan offered protection to the Green Belt ?    If Sustainable Transport Corridors means ripping up woodland and green space then no.  Developers should be looking at plots of land – how can I map housing in this space and retain trees, hedges, ponds etc and NOT how can I maximise my profit margin.  And NOT we’ll take all this green space out and put a couple of saplings down and a wildflower meadow.  That is NOT mitigating the impact of climate change. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14647

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Jane Sharples

I&O_15197
I urge you to consider and support this option of continued protection of designated Green Belt land, helping to prevent urban sprawl, safeguard the countryside, and maintain the distinct character of local communities.   Government guidance states that changes to the Green Belt should only be made in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, before considering any alterations, it is essential to demonstrate that all other reasonable options for meeting development needs have been thoroughly explored. These include:   Make better use of brownfield sites within existing settlements Increasing housing densities where appropriate Assessing the potential for accommodating growth in neighbouring areas   By prioritising these alternatives, Cheshire West and Chester can aim to meet future needs while preserving the integrity of its Green Belt.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14648

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: Jane Sharples

I&O_15198
Need to focus development along existing transport infrastructure, prioritising areas with strong rail and bus connectivity. Sites NOR10, NOR11, and NOR12 are located within proximity to several railway stations and bus routes. However, accessibility and service levels vary, and should be carefully considered when assessing their suitability for sustainable development. Most people would have to drive to these train stations thus adding more traffic on to heavily congested roads at peak times.  Poorly serviced bus routes, often unreliable and services cancelled.     Bus Services   Route 48 : Connects Weaverham to Acton Bridge, Northwich, and Frodsham 5 buses per day, no evening or weekend service First bus to Acton Bridge Station departs at 09:17   Route 49 : Connects Rudheath, Weaverham, and Northwich Every 30 minutes during daytime, no evening or Sunday service First bus to Greenbank Station departs at 06:57

Option C - Sustainable transport corridors

Comment

Representation ID: 14657

Received: 01/09/2025

Respondent: mary tavener

I&O_15207
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 - take forward current Local Plan Objectives

Comment

Representation ID: 14668

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Homes North West Ltd

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15218
As set out in the following response, we believe an alternative spatial option should be explored.(see question SS 12 and attachment)

None of these