Comment

Representation ID: 4690

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cathy Thiemicke

Q SS 11
I&O_4997
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4725

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Beryl Thiemicke

Question SS 11
I&O_5042
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4726

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: victoria rigby

I&O_5044
Option C allows for a way to blend how people are choosing to live and support communiites whilst accessing a global workplace whilst reducing environmental impact. They could also allow strategey to build local commuter routes too.

Comment

Representation ID: 4753

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5081
My personal preference (based on bias) is Option A. I think green belt land is at threat already and releasing more could create a dangerous precedent. However considering the wider borough requirements, I think Option B is probably the most appropriate for a balanced approach for the region. However I would state that I think even in Option B green belt land release needs to be absolutely seen as a last resort - and done with careful considerations in each case - to avoid urban sprawl and habitat destruction across a county primarily known for its rural character. I do have major concerns on this element, as I feel it could easily become a pandoras box which allows unsuitable developments to be given the green light too easily. Option C does not look sensible or feasible to me at all. There is a massive assumption in this spatial strategy that things like a transport corridor in one place equals a transport corridor in another. This is simply not the case in reality as someone who actually uses these networks regularly. I would strongly reject option C completely and remove it from the viable routes going forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 4769

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Holden

I&O_5112
I feel option A is the best, providing it is done with consideration for protecting green spaces and maintaining the character of the areas. Option B or C puts an unmanageable burden on Frodsham, the number of houses is impossible given the amount of important woodland and farmland surrounding it and the already overstretched infrastructure. I object to Option B or C strongly.

Comment

Representation ID: 4783

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: James Davison

I&O_5129
The only viable option is Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 4833

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heat Pumps and Engineering Directors' Pension Fund

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5183
Our preferred spatial approach is Option B, which offers the greatest potential to distribute growth more evenly across the borough, unlocking early deliverable housing aligned with existing infrastructure capacity and market interest. It avoids the over-reliance on constrained urban areas seen in Option A, while also mitigating the environmental and delivery risks associated with large-scale Green Belt release under Option C. Option B provides the flexibility to respond to local needs while maintaining a clear plan-led strategy, ensuring that growth is directed to sustainable, deliverable locations. There is secondary support for Option A, recognising its value in promoting brownfield regeneration and urban intensification, though it is unlikely to accommodate the full scale of growth required, particularly for employment land and a diverse housing mix, given urban capacity, and viability limitations. Option C is not supported as a primary strategy, as new settlements and significant Green Belt release would introduce major delivery risks, particularly in the early part of the plan period. It is recommended that the Council adopts Option B as the core spatial strategy, complemented by appropriate elements of Option A where urban opportunities exist, ensuring growth is phased, flexible, and well-integrated with infrastructure and community support, particularly in locations such as Cuddington and Northwich

Comment

Representation ID: 4847

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

ss11
I&O_5197
If I have to choose an option it will be A  or D but I don't think you can apply any of the options to the whole of CWAC. Some areas will be more suitable to one option rather than the other. I think looking at sustainable transport routes is a good idea but in Frodsham for instance some of  the areas highlighted for development are wholly inappropriate. The reason being that there is already congestion at certain times of day on the Lakes estate/ ward, Fluin Lane junction and in the town centre and there is already a problem with air quality particularly at the A56 Fluin Lane junction. Also and most importantly areas marked for development FR001 and FR002 include important wildlife sites, there is a Local Wildlife Site off Ellis Lane and Hob Hey Woods that is ancient woodland. Building houses by these sites will be disastrous as the hedgerows  ponds, and the fields around are essential to the ecology of the ancient woodland and ponds. Also the supporting infrastructure isn't available for that many homes and even more people and potentially vehicles that will need doctors, schools, dentists etc. Not to mention that the Station Car park is already full on busy days of the week and there is not other long term parking available. We used to have a good bus service but this has reduced significantly over the years. There are lots of empty buildings in Frodsham that should be looked at first, ie empty banks, then there are the areas put forward in the Neighbourhood plan and the area next to the medical centre. Also a lot of people can't afford rail travel so until rail prices are sorted out people are still going to drive sadly.    

Comment

Representation ID: 4855

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Louise Cole

SS11
I&O_5206
Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 4868

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Wetherell

SS11
I&O_5221
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 4875

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: John Bradley

Paragraph 5.7, Question SS 11:
I&O_5228
Option A – Retain the Green Belt. Option A should be chosen as the spatial strategy option for the local plan. This will preserve the key assets and rural characteristics of CWAC and the highly valued quality of the landscape and environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 4879

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Bradley

I&O_5232
Option A - Retain the Green Belt !

Comment

Representation ID: 4922

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: P Weston

I&O_5281
SS 11 Option B would seem to be the most achievable: Option C, whilst the most laudable, would require huge investment to deliver. Option A would be worst, as it puts people further away from where they will be working/travelling to other employment centres from and perpetuate the retention of non-productive farmland and brownfield sites

Comment

Representation ID: 4952

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Marsland

I&O_5311
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 4989

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Baird

Question SS11
I&O_5348
Option A - retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 5018

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Cross

I&O_5377
Option C, but a sustainable transport corridor requires more than the existence of a bus route. The routes with the best transport links (especially rail) should be prioritised.

Comment

Representation ID: 5032

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5391
None of these, although B, with and element from C, would be appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 5054

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Percival

I&O_5413
Option A - provides the best balance between domestic and industrial/commercial expansion whilst preserving the 'green belt' between Ellesmere Port and Chester, thus preventing urban sprawl and helping to disperse and absorb CO2 pollution load.

Comment

Representation ID: 5136

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5500
D is my preference. While all 3 options contain relevant information, I do not feel it adequately protects the unique charactistics of Davenham or Moulton or focuses development towards the north of Northwich or in Winsford more broadly.

Comment

Representation ID: 5146

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Barry

I&O_5510
Option B is the way forward. Option C, the sustainable transport strategy - is unrealistic as adding 3,000 houses to the 4,000 existing houses already in Frodsham will undermine all the Local Plan principles and will require a significant investment to increase capacity of both Transport for Wales and Northern links to Manchester and Liverpool.  It is unrealistic to expect lots of poeple living in the 3,000 new houses to be able to access local stations at Helsby, Frodsham, Delamere and Mouldsworth without a major investment in car parking at / near these stations.  If not there will be increase parking in lcoal strets and incrwse congestion. There is little possibility of generating 6,500 new jobs in Frodsham, if the occupants of the 3,000 new houses in Option C are to live / work within a 15 minute neigbourhood. An extra 6,500 cars on local or long joiurneys will overload the already stretched existing local road network and necessitate construction of a new junction 13 on the M56. In short Option C is a non-starter.

Comment

Representation ID: 5202

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5566
Option A with considered infill up to natural breaks such as roads. Other side of the road should then not have more warehousing. An old warehouse is not a brown filed site if a new warehouse if going to be allowed on green belt. Humans get the worst view and environment with htese choices. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5603
A. But retain it everywhere. I notice no one seems to care about greenbelt around Winsford and Barnton - areas of economic deprivation.

Comment

Representation ID: 5263

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Williams

SS11
I&O_5628
Option B & C appear to be the most structured and balanced approaches to delivering growth that is proportional across the main towns and villages within the borough. However, there should also be a measured assessment of green belt release where larger sites would support sustainable housing and employment growth, especially grey belt land that meets the tests under para. 155 of the NPPF

Comment

Representation ID: 5281

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Deryck Ryall

SS 11
I&O_5647
Option A should be the chosen way forward .To utilise and destroy Green belt land would in effect alienate ,suffocate and decimate local character of Cheshire,s wonderful communities. Land was made millions of years ago ,to destroy Green belt by house building ,would be to seriously affect the quality of life for future generations.When it,s gone ,it,s gone for ever

Comment

Representation ID: 5286

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Denise Lamont

I&O_5652
Option A – Retain the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 5338

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy SS 5
I&O_5708
d. None of these, because it is not clear in Option B what is meant by ‘level’. Planning for the same level or quantum of development cannot be taken forward because it would fail to meet current estimates of need for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 5348

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Sherlock

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_5718
Our preferred spatial strategy is Option C, which promotes growth in well-connected locations across the borough, including smaller settlements with strong public transport links such as Mouldsworth. This approach enables early delivery of new homes on sustainable greenfield sites and supports a more resilient, distributed pattern of growth. While Option A is supported in principle for its focus on urban regeneration and brownfield land, it is unlikely to meet the full scale and variety of development needed, particularly in rural areas where high-quality, landscape-led residential sites can deliver both housing and wider environmental benefits. Option C is preferable to Option B or Option A alone, as it better reflects the locational advantages of settlements like Mouldsworth and avoids overconcentration in urban centres or overreliance on large-scale Green Belt release. We recommend that the Council adopt Option C as the preferred spatial strategy, while drawing on elements of Option A where suitable. This will ensure a flexible, sustainable, and plan-led approach to growth, enabling smaller, well-connected villages like Mouldsworth to contribute positively to the borough’s housing needs in a way that is appropriate in scale and character.

Comment

Representation ID: 5442

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5814
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt . The Green Belt serves a vital role in protecting the character of Cheshire West, preventing urban sprawl, and preserving the unique identity of towns, villages and the countryside. Once Green Belt land is released, it is lost forever, and the special setting of places like Chester cannot be regained. The inspector’s report on the Local Plan (Part One) made it clear that further Green Belt release would cause significant harm, especially around Chester. Nothing has changed to justify ignoring this conclusion. On the contrary, with more pressure for large-scale development, it is even more important to hold firm. Protecting the Green Belt also drives the right kind of development choices. It forces the Council and developers to: Bring forward the thousands of homes already approved but not yet built. Regenerate brownfield and underused sites in towns, which supports local services and cuts car dependency. Make sure infrastructure and services are properly planned alongside housing, rather than bolting new estates onto the edge of settlements. Options B and C both leave the door open to unnecessary Green Belt loss, and neither tackles the real issue of infrastructure first. Growth must be shaped by what communities and services can sustain, not just by national housing numbers. For these reasons, Option A is the only option that properly protects Cheshire West for current and future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 5538

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5910
We feel that Option C provides the best approach, given that it provides more recognition of the need for locational sustainability of new development outside the main towns. However, we note that the extent of these sustainable areas is shown on generic plans through the proxy of an 800m radius around train stations. That fails to have regard to the locational sustainability credentials that can be provided by proximity to bus services or simply being adjacent to established settlements which have existing services and infrastructure. We would also note that the 800m radius reflects a very arbitrary construct and fails to reflect the practical empirical evidence provided via the National Travel Survey in terms of the distances people will actually travel to destinations such as train stations and bus stops in connection with completing journeys for various purposes. It advises that the preferable metric is the 85% figure (so neither the mean nor the maximum figure provided by the empirical survey data). It states:  “When considering the potential walking catchment of a new development, to bus stop or railway station, the 85th percentile distance should be used.” On the basis of the above research 1610m represents an acceptable walking distance to a train station and 800m to a bus stop. That being the case, the 1610m threshold should be used instead of the 800m distance currently shown on the scenario mapping. In addition it should be noted that there will be a reasonable quantum of people (15%) who would find longer walk distances acceptable in practice. The distance from Lolstock Gralam train station to Higher Wincham is within 1610m radius so therefore within tolerance of that threshold. This represents an acceptable pedestrian journey on the basis of empirical data which should be relied upon rather than the current and entirely arbitrary 800m distance. Adoption of a more effective acceptable walk distance from train stations and genuine recognition of locational sustainability in the context of bus routes and proximity to existing services in settlements would provide a greater opportunity to meet Plan-led housing requirements.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5607

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Cowell

I&O_5979
A & B are good objectives, the currecnt local plan (Option B) seems to accommodate option A