Comment

Representation ID: 32

Received: 07/07/2025

Respondent: Chris Jackson

I&O_35
SS 12 Look at Neighbourhood Plans to see what communities want .

Comment

Representation ID: 109

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Cockburn

Alternative options
I&O_131

Comment

Representation ID: 135

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mike Mather

I&O_157
Develop two or three new sustainable, self sufficient communities/towns in the green belt. Well connected, high quality Poundbury's

Comment

Representation ID: 197

Received: 16/07/2025

Respondent: Jamie Pugh

I&O_225
The reuse of existing buildings (barns, sheds, etc) or brown field sites is extremely important. 

Comment

Representation ID: 230

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: donna Jackson

I&O_260
Retain greenbelt

Comment

Representation ID: 244

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Emma Malpeli

SS5
I&O_274
Exhaust all brown and grey field sites, this has not happened in this case. 

Comment

Representation ID: 275

Received: 20/07/2025

Respondent: Steven Cockburn

NA
I&O_305
Urban Regeneration and Brownfield First Focus new development on underused brownfield sites, particularly in Chester, Ellesmere Port and Northwich. Incentivise the reuse of vacant buildings and brownfield areas.. Support town centre revitalisation with mixed-use, high-density, walkable neighbourhoods.

Comment

Representation ID: 317

Received: 21/07/2025

Respondent: Tim Ashcroft

I&O_348
No

Comment

Representation ID: 449

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Matt Bill

I&O_532
Utilise empty, unused buildings in the first instance. Force the owners to give them up to be refurbished or re-developed. I see lots of unused buildings or brown land which should be used before building on green areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 1087

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Smith

I&O_1192
No

Comment

Representation ID: 1273

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1378
support new town developments and relieve the pressure on existing rural areas eg Liverpool City region have offered to host a new town which is largely based on brownfield sites

Comment

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Byrne

I&O_1896
Actually, you could probably merge option 1 & 2, so outside of the green belt, option 2 applies.

Comment

Representation ID: 2182

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question SS 12
I&O_2302
Make use of all the existing empty properties in the area, eg the flats in Northwich. Tell the Government that the required number of new houses is too high.

Comment

Representation ID: 2331

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2460
Avoiding Green Belt and green fields release in smaller rural towns, especially Willaston and Hooton

Comment

Representation ID: 2405

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Jack Hubert Mayhew

I&O_2534
Longer-term consideration should be given alongside this plan to potential to create a new community along rail lines in the borough. Unlikely this would be delivered until the next Local Plan, but the need for housing is not going away, and this would prepare us for something other than continual piecemeal extensions

Comment

Representation ID: 2444

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2573
I suggest the inclusion of climate change considerations which should attract significant weight.

Comment

Representation ID: 2572

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mersey Rivers Trust

I&O_2725
We do not necessarily consider that every hectare of the current defined Green Belt should necessarily be protected from development as some land in the Green Belt is arguably of lower environmental value than land outside the Green Belt (including some land within urban settlements that are important for wildlife and/or the health/wellbeing of residents – we need to ensure that the “urban areas first” approach does not end up with a concrete jungle with no green/blue space remaining in the urban settlements).   The Green Belt concept is still important but it could do with a review to check that the current zoning is appropriate and that it does its primary job of preventing uncontrolled urban sprawl and the joining up of townscapes. We consider the Local Plan should be more guided by LNRS priorities and objectives and using the detailed LNRS spatial mapping to help determine spatial planning policy. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2639

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Propsco

Question SS 12
I&O_2792
A greater spread of growth in suitable edge of settlement locations such as Weaverham. Dependence upon railway stations as the focus for new development ignores the fact that not all the railway stations are sustainably located in terms of easy access to local facilities. The opportunity should be taken to support the sustainability of existing communities by enhancing existing facilities and services, including bus services.

Comment

Representation ID: 2667

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Cholmondeley Estate

Agent: Savills (L & P) Ltd

I&O_2820
Yes – New Settlement. The Estate’s land ownership comprises 7,500 acres of predominantly agricultural land roughly between Whitchurch and Nantwich. It is one of the largest areas of land owned and managed by a single entity within the combined Cheshire Districts. Given the extent of the Estate’s ownership we wanted to make clear our commitment to working with the Council to explore the long term proposition of delivering a new settlement on the Estate’s land. New settlements offer the ability to manage growth and development by creating new, self-contained communities, rather than simply expanding existing ones. Albeit are usually developed over a longer time period due to the associated lead-in times. We recognise that this spatial strategy option is not required as part of the new Local Plan, but instead highlight that a new settlement should be explored in the future beyond this Plan period . Initial discussions on a possible new settlement have taken place and we would therefore welcome further discussions with the Council moving forward. Whilst not necessarily relevant for this Local Plan period, it maybe helpful to make reference to the potential for a new settlement in the future to make sure stakeholders are informed of potential longer term strategies for the region.

Comment

Representation ID: 2687

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: David Molyneaux

I&O_2840
The alternative is not to build any more homes. People come to live here for the green spaces and consequentlythis  initiates premium prices. A large building project will reduce house prices for the current residents of Frodsham. There is no such thing as affordable housing in Frodsham. It is expensive for a reason because of what is around us...that is, greenbelt and green land.

Comment

Representation ID: 2713

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Birtles

I&O_2869
Where land is not classed as green belt and has not been offered for sale by landowners...what is the policy for compulsory purchase of waste land, such as that under the railway viaduct between Frodsham and Runcorn and some of the old ICI land around Northwich?

Comment

Representation ID: 2813

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Smith

SS5
I&O_2983
SS5: As highlighted in the answer to Question SS11:  1) Adjust the Green Belt boundaries 2) Assess the local infrastructure capacity in existing settlements 3) Assess the employment and travel patterns 4) Build housing principally where there is employment on brown field, grey field or poorer-quality agricultural land.

Comment

Representation ID: 3303

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3477
Avoiding Green Belt and green fields release in smaller rural towns, especially Willaston and Hooton

Comment

Representation ID: 3354

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Simpson

I&O_3528
This would need more development as a policy, but why don't we look at the individual rather than the object. i.e. if we build planning policies on what is being built how can we expect people we need to house to live there. Affordable housing is an attempt at this for sure, but i think it is too often abused and thrown into a large developers plans to get other things through. Instead, can we not have a parallel policy that supports the individual taking a more holistic view of what they want to achieve i.e. the person who is going to live in the house. Piroritising self-builds and those who wish to self build up a business or lifestyle in the countryside to support their life should be considered further. What can be done to include provision for the person and not the business/entity simply building something for a profit based on what is allowable?

Comment

Representation ID: 3430

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Gary Nunn

Question SS 12
I&O_3604
Another spatial strategy should be to create a new village(s)/town in the CWAC area to  meet a significant portion of future housing needs and, thereby, alleviate pressure on existing infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 3441

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3615
No

Comment

Representation ID: 3542

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3716
No

Comment

Representation ID: 3874

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Proctor

I&O_4056
Discourage new developments built as investments only and not for occupation. Airbnb should be restricted. Properties should be let on longer term tenancies not daily rates. Multiple Airbnbs can cause disturbance to neighbours and add to parking problems. We need estbalished communities to improve people's sense of wellbeing. Restrict owners creating one large property out of two adjoining smaller ones. Small properties help single people, first time buyers, and older people down-sizing.

Comment

Representation ID: 3952

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4134
A structured GIS approach with weighted factor scroing across B. highest, then a. then c.

Comment

Representation ID: 4040

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4248
Little Leigh Parish Council has no alternative options to suggest.