Comment

Representation ID: 4066

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Hair

I&O_4274
Don't build on green belt

Comment

Representation ID: 5033

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5392
B, with the addition of smaller settlements with a rail station, such as: Cuddington and Sandiway; Helsby; Frodsham; and Neston and Parkgate taking a bigger role in accommodating development.

Comment

Representation ID: 5069

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Percival

I&O_5428
The industrial sites situated along the Stanlow/Thornton/Ince (A5117) corridor, have been a subject of concern to the residents of Ellesemere Port and surrounding rural communities in recent months. On a number of occasons, foul, noxious odours have blighted the area - each event duly reported to, and documented by Local Environmental Health officials and the Environment Agency via their Emergency Line. Any plans that may further compromise air quality in the Ellesmere Port area by adding even more heavy industry would be unreasonable and a potential risk to health.    

Comment

Representation ID: 5150

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Barry

I&O_5514
Option B

Comment

Representation ID: 5245

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5609
Building in the far east of the county next to the motorway and the junctions on the M6 seems to be an overlooked area. Reopen the railway to Middlewich /Sandbach

Comment

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Suggested policy SS 5
I&O_5711
The most appropriate spatial strategy would be a variation on Option B: ‘Follow current Local Plan distribution of development’ because this will allocate the most development to the most sustainable locations, the existing main urban settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 5435

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_5807
SS12 As mentioned elsewhere, if there is ever a real demand to declassify greenbelt to allow development, I believe there is a rationale for earmarking a bounded area of greenbelt in which a new, small settlement could be developed, rather than erode greenbelt around existing communities by stealth. An example to demonstrate the idea, land bounded by A49, A54 and Fishpool Lane which is well served by road (for Chester, Northwich and Winsford), would remain surrounded by greenbelt (hence retaining nature corridors), rail access at Delamere (2 miles)

Comment

Representation ID: 5450

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5822
Yes. I believe the Local Plan should consider a spatial strategy option that is genuinely infrastructure-led and brownfield-first , rather than automatically releasing more land, especially Green Belt, to meet national housing numbers. This alternative option would include: Brownfield-first regeneration. Prioritise the use of previously developed land, empty buildings, and stalled planning permissions before any new land is allocated. The Council’s own evidence shows thousands of homes already have permission but are not built. Delivery, not more permissions, should be the focus. Infrastructure before expansion. No new development should be approved in any settlement unless school places, GP provision, roads, and public transport capacity are in place or guaranteed. Infrastructure must lead growth, not follow behind. Green Belt protection. The Green Belt should be treated as an absolute last resort. Development should only be considered there if every brownfield, vacant, and underused site has been delivered and independently demonstrated to be insufficient. Stronger use of design and density. Where housing is needed within towns, this should be achieved through higher-quality, well-designed schemes that provide proper open space, safe routes for children, and respect for heritage and local character. Community needs first. Growth should focus on affordable housing, healthcare access, schools and sustainable jobs, rather than speculative estates that primarily benefit developers. This approach would still deliver housing and employment land but in a way that is more sustainable, protects communities, and reflects local realities. It would also build public trust by showing that the Council is putting existing residents and future sustainability at the centre of planning, not just chasing headline numbers.

Comment

Representation ID: 5537

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5909
As eluded to, I think there are options which may support the growth of smaller hamlets into more sustainable villages and provide better public transport connectivity than existing development options on the fringes of towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 5542

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: ATP

I&O_5914
As per our response to SS11, we would encourage opportunities to consider a more rounded approach to what would be deemed as a sustainable location (rather than just a radius distance to a train station). Our response to SS11 sets that out in some detail and we refer you to that. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5818

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Nigel Speirs

I&O_6190
Use of all brownfield sites and under utilized areas such as Park and Ride sites. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5825

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6197
Put Active Travel at the heart of your thinking.

Comment

Representation ID: 6002

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

I&O_6391
Create new villages or small towns along good transport routes outside greenbelt if possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 6027

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6416
A broader plan that looks at components of B & C but also spreads development evenly across the county rather than trying to shoehorn it into certain areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 6150

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Toby Hazlehurst

I&O_6546
Don't build any new houses in and around Chester. It is already too busy. We don't have enough roads, schools, healthcare etc etc. The traffic is already a nightmare. I object to any new housing development. 

Comment

Representation ID: 6171

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6567
5 | SS 12 Do you have any alternative spatial strategy options that you would like to suggest?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base Yes — the Local Plan should adopt a “Brownfield and Infrastructure First” spatial strategy, fully consistent with the FNHP. This would: Prioritise regeneration of brownfield and underused urban land. Support only small-scale, modest infill in market towns like Frodsham, aligned with neighbourhood evidence (SEA ~97 homes). Protect Local Green Spaces, Hob Hey Wood, and the ASCV, as set out in FNHP policies (GSRL1, HCH1–HCH5). Make infrastructure capacity a precondition for growth — schools, GPs, transport, drainage — rather than an afterthought.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Any spatial strategy must explicitly rule out sites adjacent to or fragmenting ancient woodland. Hob Hey Wood is irreplaceable and its ecological corridors cannot be compromised.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally has committed to: A brownfield-first approach, Permanent Green Belt protection except in exceptional cases, Infrastructure-first delivery so communities are not left behind. The HOPE for Frodsham plan reflects these priorities locally, linking growth to wellbeing and countryside protection.   🧠 Wider Context Bourland stresses that spatial choices must align with carbon budgets and climate resilience. Colenutt warns that without clear rules, developer pressure will dictate allocations, not community need. Gallent argues spatial strategies must treat homes as community assets, not speculative products.   📌 Important Considerations The Council should adopt a Brownfield and Infrastructure First Strategy as an alternative to Options A–C. This means: Regenerating urban land before considering greenfield. Directing growth to settlements with infrastructure capacity, not overstretched small towns. Providing smaller, affordable homes where local need is demonstrated. Protecting Green Belt, ancient woodland, and high-grade farmland as permanent constraints.   This strategy would deliver the homes and jobs we need while respecting environmental, infrastructure, and community limits.

Comment

Representation ID: 6957

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7425
We believe a hybrid version of Option B and C but also recognising the need to increase existing settlements areas to accommodate the significant level of housing and employment growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 7079

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7550
Develop a New Town on the east of the area in conjunction with Cheshire East near to the M6 and West Coast Main Line/HS2

Comment

Representation ID: 7123

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Davies

I&O_7595
Stick to the current plans, preserve all green belt and tell central government that cheshire is an essentially rural county who's character must be preserved, therefore claim an exemption from their ridiculous requirement to build so many homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 7196

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nik Darwin

I&O_7674
Consideration of a new settlement or very large urban extension rather than smaller areas of development being scattered around as a longer term option for delivery later in the plan period

Comment

Representation ID: 7343

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7823
No.

Comment

Representation ID: 7361

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Mark Stocks

I&O_7841
WE SHOULD PRIORITISE BROWN FIELD SITES

Comment

Representation ID: 7363

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lynn Stocks

I&O_7843
Yes, to prioritise the use of brown belt sites and empty properties before considering green belt, open countryside and agricultural land.

Comment

Representation ID: 7376

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tony Statham

I&O_7856
If you are going to build on the green belt rather than enlarge existing communities you should consider building new villages from scratch in an area that has good transport links into Chester City. Alongside the housing should be community facilites, primary school , GP surgery, pub and recreational facilities

Comment

Representation ID: 7460

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7940
No

Comment

Representation ID: 7541

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Traynor

I&O_8021
Brownfield Only should be the primary consideration. I would not agree with any merging of the options, Option A is the only option I would support.

Comment

Representation ID: 7614

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Wintle

I&O_8101
The alternative is not to build any more homes. People come to live here for the green spaces and the premium prices for it. 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 7840

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8329
Yes : as follows OPTION D : “Sustainable settlements & Infrastructure solutions” Delivered through : Green Belt release, delivering growth in sustainable settlements with supporting infrastructure with proportionate growth based on scale and status  Our OPTION D would deliver the following spatial distribution and a total of c. 29,025 units: City & Sub Regional Centre : Chester At least 7,000 Principal Town : Ellesmere Port At least 5,000 Principal Town : Northwich At least 4,000 Principal Town : Winsford At least 3,000 Principal Town : Middlewich No figure defined Market Town : Neston & Parkgate At least 1,500 Market Town : Frodsham At least 1,000 Strategic Service Centres (4) : Helsby, Cuddington & Sandiway, Tarporley, Malpas Up to 750 in each = 3,000 Key Service Centres (5) : Kelsall, Tattenhall, Tarvin, Farndon and Christleton Up to 500 in each = 2,500 Local Service Centres (27) : Antrobus, Ashton Hayes, Aldford, Childer Thornton, Comberbach, Crowton, Delamere, Dodleston, Duddon, Eaton, Eccleston, Elton, Great Barrow, Great Budworth, Guilden Sutton, Higher Wincham, Kingsley, Little Budworth, Mickle Trafford, Moulton, No Mans Heath, Norley, Saughall, Tilston, Utkinton, Waverton and Willaston Up to 75 in each = 2,025

Comment

Representation ID: 7844

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Giles

I&O_8333
The alternative is not to build any more homes. People come to live here for the green spaces and the premium prices for it. 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 8045

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8534
Yes : as follows OPTION D : “Sustainable settlements & Infrastructure solutions” Delivered through : Green Belt release, delivering growth in sustainable settlements with supporting infrastructure with proportionate growth based on scale and status  Our OPTION D would deliver the following spatial distribution and a total of c. 29,025 units: City & Sub Regional Centre : Chester At least 7,000 Principal Town : Ellesmere Port At least 5,000 Principal Town : Northwich At least 4,000 Principal Town : Winsford At least 3,000 Principal Town : Middlewich No figure defined Market Town : Neston & Parkgate At least 1,500 Market Town : Frodsham At least 1,000 Strategic Service Centres (4) : Helsby, Cuddington & Sandiway, Tarporley, Malpas Up to 750 in each = 3,000 Key Service Centres (5) : Kelsall, Tattenhall, Tarvin, Farndon and Christleton Up to 500 in each = 2,500 Local Service Centres (27) : Antrobus, Ashton Hayes, Aldford, Childer Thornton, Comberbach, Crowton, Delamere, Dodleston, Duddon, Eaton, Eccleston, Elton, Great Barrow, Great Budworth, Guilden Sutton, Higher Wincham, Kingsley, Little Budworth, Mickle Trafford, Moulton, No Mans Heath, Norley, Saughall, Tilston, Utkinton, Waverton and Willaston Up to 75 in each = 2,025