Comment

Representation ID: 5633

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Thomas Jackson

I&O_6005
Option A - Retain the Green Belt. Our green belt should be protected. Wildlife depends on these green spaces, and handing these over the developers will cause the destruction of local wildlife habitats and ecosystems. This will be irreparable damage. We can build houses in other places easily. We can't rebuild nature easily once destroyed.   [additional comments received by email] Following the recent consultation regarding the Neston Local Plan and Spatial Strategy, I have become 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 presented in Option B and particularly Option C. I am strongly opposed to the proposal, with my key concerns being:  Impact to the Green Belt: The Neston Neighbourhood Plan document (published March 2016) and Policy STRAT 9 within the Local Plan emphasise the importance of the green belt and maintaining it for nature, agriculture, and the enjoyment of the local community. STRAT 9 states that there are certain circumstances in which development will be permitted, but the Options presented that develop on the Green Belt do not appear to meet any of these requirements. Building on fields that local wildlife require to thrive is causing irreversible damage to ecosystems and nature. In an era where the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly acute, how can we justify the destruction of more green space? Impact to local infrastructure: Neston is a small town with approximately 7,000 dwellings. Option C proposes 1,500 to 3,000 homes, which represents a 25-50% increase in the number of dwellings in the town. Without adequate infrastructure investment, this will be catastrophic to the current level of services in the town. There are numerous examples of housing developments where local infrastructure and services have not been developed, leading to sewage issues, oversubscribed health services, and schools. I acknowledge the need for new homes to address the current housing shortage and affordability issues. However, if this is to be an investment for the future and future generations, the destruction of the green belt will not be well-received by those who inherit it. In response to Question SS 11 , my choice is: Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 5667

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Mills

I&O_6039
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 5710

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6082
a. Option A  The preferred option is Option A, retention of the green belt. Option B is excessive and would result in doubling the size of the village. This is not sustainable. A second option if Option A is not allowed would be development of NOR10 only. This combined with adoption of the ring road from Wallerscote to Weaverham round-about would reduce the traffic through the centre of Weaverham and take some off the Winnington Swing Bridge, which was another recommendation for replacement in the Northwich Transport Strategy. Most of the new house owners will have jobs outside the area, even as far away as Liverpool, Manchester and the Midlands. Why aren't more houses being built there?

Comment

Representation ID: 5720

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6092
Option A  - The green belt should be retained and a high bar set on any plans to consider any land being considered Grey Belt. Brownfield sites, scrub land  should be fully explored. The large towns and their centres should be developed with higher densities allowed, particularly where Active Travel to the shops and services , and employment hubs is most effective.

Comment

Representation ID: 5728

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Cowap

I&O_6100
I vote for option A

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 5731

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

SS11
I&O_6103
Option A The North Cheshire green belt is important for supporting the nature reserves but also enhances the attractiveness of Cheshire as a tourist destination; canals, reserves, woodlands, walking trails, coastline etc

Comment

Representation ID: 5747

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Folwell

I&O_6119
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 5801

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sheila Frampton

I&O_6173
Option A: Retain the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 5817

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Speirs

I&O_6189
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 5823

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janet Bridge

I&O_6195
Option A 

Comment

Representation ID: 5870

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine Gregory

Question SS 11
I&O_6243
Option A - Retain the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 5875

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_6259
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 5894

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: lindsay traynor

I&O_6280
Option A is the only option to protect Waverton.  According to Gov.uk in 2022-2023 only 12.5% of land in England is designated as Green Belt and only across 15 areas which is shocking, surely this needs to be protected.  We cant allow our land to be destroyed just because developers dont want to pay the cost of remediation of brownfield/grey land.  We cannot allow this to happen to our precious countryside just because its the 'easy and cheap' option to protect the pockets of the developers.  Green Belt was assigned in order to 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. We would be potentially breaching the whole purchase of the green belt if these were included in the local plans.  Once its gone, its gone and I would like our rural areas to still be here for my grandchildren and their grandchildren to enjoy.

Comment

Representation ID: 5995

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: John Cowley

SS 11
I&O_6384
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 6023

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6412
D

Comment

Representation ID: 6038

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Ranger

SS11
I&O_6427
Option A - Retain the Green Belt 

Comment

Representation ID: 6072

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tim O'Keeffe

I&O_6461
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 6090

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Durling

I&O_6479
Option A Retain Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 6101

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Slater

I&O_6491
I lean in favour of retaining the green belt because i do not have faith that wholesale new development will deliver improvements in overall liveability of Cheshire West based on experience to date. Developers reneging on deals and declaring bankruptcy suddenly only to reappear under a new name shortly afterwards does not bode well. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6132

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Toby Hazlehurst

I&O_6528
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 6168

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6564
5 | SS 11 Please select the option which is   the most appropriate spatial strategy for Cheshire West and Chester:   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base Option A – Retain the Green Belt is the only option consistent with the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan. The FNHP (SEA) identified capacity for only ~97 additional homes through brownfield and windfall sites. Large Green Belt allocations, such as FRO01 and FRO02, would directly contradict adopted neighbourhood policy, overwhelm local infrastructure, and undermine Frodsham’s historic market town identity.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Options B and C would place land allocations directly adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. This ancient woodland is a Local Green Space and Site of Biological Importance. Development here would: Destroy biodiversity corridors, Increase pollution and visitor pressure, and Irreparably harm an irreplaceable natural asset.   For Frodsham, any spatial strategy must confirm Hob Hey Wood as an absolute constraint.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally has set ambitious housing targets but has also committed to: Brownfield-first regeneration, Permanent Green Belt boundaries except in exceptional, evidenced cases, and Linking growth to infrastructure and wellbeing.   Option A is most aligned with these priorities. Options B and C risk diluting trust in planning by normalising “grey belt” release.   🧠 Wider Context Gallent warns Option B risks creating speculative commuter estates, not homes for local people. Bourland stresses Option C is undeliverable in places like Frodsham, where rail and bus capacity is already stretched and car dependency would worsen climate impacts. Colenutt highlights that once Green Belt boundaries are loosened, developer pressure makes it impossible to hold the line.   📌 Important Considerations The most appropriate approach is Option A – Retain the Green Belt. It is the only option consistent with the FNHP and with protecting ancient woodland and biodiversity corridors. Options B and C would undermine Frodsham’s character, overwhelm its limited infrastructure, and breach the Local Green Space designation of Hob Hey Wood.   If CWAC wishes to consider a hybrid approach, it must include an explicit guarantee that no Green Belt release will be permitted where sites contain ancient woodland, lie within the ASCV, or form essential ecological corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 6203

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Nolan

SS11 local available land map and other documents supplied in this consultation
I&O_6599
Option A is the best choice.    

Comment

Representation ID: 6227

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carolyn Stratton

I&O_6625
OPTION A - retain the greenbelt for Frodsham

Comment

Representation ID: 6240

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Casey

SS11
I&O_6638
The Green Belt should be retained as these areas are important for the health and well-being of the local communities and to mitigate climae change.

Comment

Representation ID: 6271

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Henry Lazarowicz

I&O_6678
Option A - Retain the Greenbelt - is my preferred choice.

Comment

Representation ID: 6285

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Basden

I&O_6692
I favour Option A - Retain the Green Belt. Green Belt was introduced for a purpose and should be retained wherever possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 6336

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Victor Malpeli

ss11
I&O_6743
Retain the Greenbelt. Unfortunately, the option to retain the greenbelt is for a minimum of 500 homes, not for a lesser number, if any at all. Will the building of 500 homes impact our greenbelt? If this option were selected, where would the homes be built in terms of Frodsham?

Comment

Representation ID: 6360

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Morton

I&O_6771
Option C

Comment

Representation ID: 6362

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Bennett

I&O_6773
Preference for option A, but if do need to eat into greenbelt then best that this is done on periphery of existing larger settlements with good access to services within short distance (ie dip into option B where needed for numbers). Option C seems wrong as just providing transport links without providing high levels of local services only encourages longer journeys, so is likely to be worse for environment than placing housing close to existing services.

Comment

Representation ID: 6365

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Diocese of Chester

Agent: Fisher German LLP

I&O_6777
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 Winsford and Northwich.