Comment

Representation ID: 7358

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Mark Stocks

I&O_7838
A RETAIN THE GREEN BELT

Comment

Representation ID: 7359

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lynn Stocks

I&O_7839
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7362

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr T Vernon-Smith

Agent: David Parker Planning Associates

SS 11
I&O_7842
Option B or Option C.

Comment

Representation ID: 7371

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tony Statham

I&O_7851
Option A is by far the best option. Extending existing villages around Chester would ruin the beautiful nature of the existing villages. Villages are important as they give a sense of community and identity. This in turn leads to more mutual support within the communities, low levels of crime etc. If the villages get too large they lose this sense of community and this leads to all the problems experienced by urban community ie increase in crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour. Waverton, Christleton , Mickle Trafford Guilden Sutton are already at the limit of a population that enhances these benefits

Comment

Representation ID: 7459

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7939
A

Comment

Representation ID: 7503

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Strachan

I&O_7983
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 7505

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Nuala Floyd

I&O_7985
A combination of protecting our green belt and providing sustainable transport corridors. Transport across the country from west to east is appalling and is not reliable enough to encourage people to leave their cars at home. The idea of Chester Liverpool Manchester Warrington putting pressure on the government to improve our transport links needs to be a high priotity in order the Option C to be sustainable

Comment

Representation ID: 7540

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Traynor

I&O_8020
Option A - retain the Green Belt designations

Comment

Representation ID: 7586

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Anne Bayliss

I&O_8073
I support Option A – Retain the Green Belt .

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7593

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes North West

Agent: SATPLAN Ltd

I&O_8080
For Sandiway there are growth options within open countryside locations. These options should be considered before reviewing the need for Green Belt Sites to meet the requirements for Sandiway.

Comment

Representation ID: 7598

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Anna Hardman

I&O_8085
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 HUGE flood risk to the residents at 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: 7600

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Angela Dunn

I&O_8087
Current green belt is already eroded by the ongoing huge Wrexham Road development. There are serious concerns about the environmental impact as the area experiences frequent flooding on main roads which has an impact on getting to work, school, appointments.  There is is a lack of green spaces within the Lache ward already. 

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7613

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Wintle

I&O_8100
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?

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7675

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Jones Homes (North West) Limited

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_8162
These representations which focus on Tarporley, and the options are as follows: • Option A - 500-1,000 dwellings • Option B – 500 to 1,500 dwellings • Option C - 500 to 1,500 dwellings Under any option that is consulted on Tarporley is identified as a settlement which can accommodate at least 500 dwellings. Housing delivery in Tarporley between 2010 and 2024 where 321 dwellings have been completed which is an average of 23 dwellings per annum although this was based on a requirement in STRAT8 of 300 dwellings in the Plan Period. With the total requirement of at least 28,170 dwellings applying the same distribution (Option B) for Tarporley would be at least 400 dwellings. However, as we now set out Tarporley had a range of services and facilities that can accommodate a greater number as set out in Options A, B and C.

Support

Representation ID: 7682

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Monitoring Group

I&O_8169
We discussed the Options A, B & C and concluded that they should not be seen as a binary choice. There is a cacophony of local opinion in favour of Option A, Maintaining the Green Belt. Option B clearly has merit as well Our conclusion, before we have seen the Housing Needs Assessment and before the Vision for Frodsham has been developed, is that whilst some parts of each Option A or B would be closest to meeting the community’s wishes, Option C and the limited and targeted use of land currently in the Green Belt may need to be considered.  In summary no option is suitable in its entirety. The FNPMG have looked carefully at all of the sites in the HELAA as a possible and practical way forward. We note that additional sites may come forward during this Consultation, which may impact on our initial conclusions.

Comment

Representation ID: 7719

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Hollins Strategic Land

Agent: Emery Planning Partnership

I&O_8206
These representations which focus on Hartford, and the options for Northwich are as follows: • Option A - 5000+ dwellings • Option B – 5000+ dwellings • Option C - 5000+ dwellings Under any option that is consulted on Northwich is proposed to accommodate at least 5,000 dwellings and Hartford can provide its proportion share as we now set out.

Comment

Representation ID: 7734

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Dunn

I&O_8221
Erosion of our green belt  increases the risk of flooding. Lack of green spaces has a negative impact on environment and health. The Wrexham road development has already eroded what little green space we have left.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Support

Representation ID: 7766

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Catherine O'Grady

I&O_8254
Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7805

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Lunt

I&O_8293


Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7807

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8295
Re; New Site Submission, Acres Lane Upton - see attachment. 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

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

Comment

Representation ID: 7837

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8326
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 7843

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Giles

I&O_8332
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?

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7877

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Graham and Caroline Russell

SS 11
I&O_8366
Option A – Retain the Green Belt

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 7900

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Geoff Fawkes

I&O_8389
As part of the Councils consultation on the Local Plan I would like to register my support for Option B of the three spatial options presented.

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

Comment

Representation ID: 7922

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Bullock

SS11
I&O_8411
I would like to give my preference for question SS 11:  I would like to see Option B adopted, as this results in fewer homes built in more rural village areas and more homes in larger urban areas, such as Chester and Ellesmere Port.  I would also like to prevent any future development South of Chester road, Cuddington, even if the current planning applications for these areas are refused. We must not split the village across a busy trunk road. Overall, we do not have adequate infrastructure or services within our villages to accommodate even up to 500 new homes so I would prefer to see far fewer than the 'up to 500' homes in my local village, Cuddington and Sandiway.  The council is responding to a directive from the government that new homes are required. However, the types of new homes that will probably be built are unlikely to match the types of homes that are actually required, such as affordable homes, smaller homes and bungalows. The council should ensure that the types of homes that are built match the overall requirement, rather than the requirement of the housing developer, mainly to maximise their profits. I have concerns about the impact on the environment, the natural world and green spaces surrounding out villages, that all this development will have. We are one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, which is quite shocking!

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

Comment

Representation ID: 7977

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Katie Jackson

I&O_8466
I’m writing this email to oppose the plans which are to build new housing estates in and around Weaverham, this refers to Question SS 11 option A. I live on Green Park Weaverham and Nor10 is the field which backs onto my property and so many others.  I find it very unfair and unhelpful to build more houses on these sites, due to people living in Weaverham all there life and also the traffic which this is going to cause !. The noise and also all of the wagons which are going to be coming through Weaverham is going to be such a nightmare.  The farmers use these fields every year to grow their crops and also nutrients for their farms and also local farm shops. By building on these, not only are you destroying there lives, jobs and also crops for farm land/ animals, you are destroying living nature.  I can’t comprehend the anger we feel about this, I think it’s appauling that all you people want to do is build more and more houses destroying the natural beauty of Weaverham. We as a village find it selfish on what you want to do.   The fields are what makes Weaverham such a special place to live. The views, the walks, the nature which lives there.  By building on these lands, for sure people are going to move out of Weaverham and that makes it so sad. People who have lived here for years. Im sure if you guys lived looking over a Beautiful field, you would not want new builds going up outside your bedroom window!  As a village we will not let you do this to us !  

Comment

Representation ID: 8008

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8497
Re: Chester Road, Kelsall 1.16 - We consider only a variation of OPTION B will deliver the most meaningful, logical and sustainable growth and delivery strategy for the Borough; the reasons of this will be presented in our answers that follow and we set out our alternative OPTION D below. 1.17 However, there is a recognition that rural communities must also provide an “uptick” and deliver infrastructure. There are over 6,000 on the housing waiting list and an increasing number reliant upon being housed in temporary accommodation. These households cannot wait for a Local Plan to deliver aspirational housing number solutions, they need housing solutions now. There is a need to address this acute and critical housing needs across the open market and affordable housing sectors along with delivery of essential infrastructure and attracting investment to deliver economic growth and jobs. 1.18 The opportunity therefore exists for the Local Plan Review to take a more progressive, balanced and proportionate approach to sustainable growth - one that offers to recalibrate and deliver greater relative sustainability to not just the Major or Key Service Centre settlements but also the Local Service Centres too. 1.19 However, the emerging plan will need to follow the direction set out in NPPF and adhere to the “Duty to Co-operate” and part of this will be the need to recognise that there has effectively been a complete collapse of housing delivery in the adjacent districts of Wrexham, Wirral and Shropshire over the past 20 years. 1.20 This submission urges a need for co-operation and there now being consideration of CWACC taking up the slack in delivering extra growth. It has proven that it is capable of delivery over the past/current 2010 to 2030 plan period and the level of delivery achieved indicates that it has capacity for additional growth. [See attachment para 1.21-1.23 tables and suggestion for Option D on housing growth and spatial distribution.] 1.24 This largely adopts the revised settlement hierarchy that is presented under SS4 but presents them in logical groupings and the only fundamental change is that Christleton moves up a tier – it benefits from a host of support services including Primary and Secondary schools and for this reason alone must be considered much more than just a Local Service Centre. 1.25 We consider that these amendments would allow the emerging plan to be found “sound” and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss these with Officers. [See NPPF context attached para 2.1]

Comment

Representation ID: 8043

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8532
Variation of Option B is preferred – see our Option D below [attached]

Comment

Representation ID: 8056

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Beech

I&O_8545
I wish to confirm my full and absolute support for Option A: Retain Green Belt . This option is the only sustainable and appropriate approach for future development in our borough. It aligns with the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt as set out in national planning policy, which is to prevent urban sprawl and protect the unique character of our villages.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8058

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Giles

I&O_8547
None of these Answer: 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?

None of these