Comment

Representation ID: 8062

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Giles

I&O_8551
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: 8240

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8729
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: 8449

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8940
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: 8636

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (North West) Ltd and Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9127
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: 8658

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Evans

SS12
I&O_9149
A fourth option? Whilst I appreciate this is effectively an 'optioneering' phase, I believe if just a proportion of these proposals go ahead, it will decimate our villages- the fragile infrastructure of which are already stretched. Options B&C on the proposals will eat into areas of green-belt land too, and our own village would potentially double in size based on the maps. Rather than this 'death by a thousand cuts' approach to our towns and villages, I believe that if we need 29,000 new homes in CWAC, effectively a town.... then that is what we should look at building. A new 'NEW TOWN' for Cheshire West, complete with the infrastructure built-in and expanded as it grows- new roads, railway stations off existing lines, schools, surgeries, sports and leisure facilities, restaurants and pubs etc. I do believe this requires significant effort at National level, just as the government put in place in the decades following the second world war, in three waves up to the 1970's. Locally, Warrington (Birchwood) and Runcorn were the result of these efforts. Provision would need to be in place to restrict housing away from private landlords and AirBnBs, neither of which will help the housing situation for new buyers. We have seen with recent large local developments such as at Winnington, that what is promised by developers and builders, and what is delivered are two very different things. What passes for even a pub in Winnington is a converted shop unit. Developers also play the system well, submitting piece-meal planning applications which, when viewed individually, do not incur infrastructure improvements. Even with the promise of affordable housing, we saw on the development at the old Eden Vale factory off the A49, that the number of affordable houses can be reduced by a builder ‘not making enough profit’ Finally, I don’t understand why the north of the county continues to get ‘hit’ by these large developments while the rural south of the county (outside of green-belt) continues largely undeveloped. I would have thought that Northwich had ‘done it’s bit’ for now with Winnington and Kingsmead for example.

Comment

Representation ID: 8812

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9305
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: 8949

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9442
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: 9085

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Northstone

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9578
We do not consider that any single option, as presented in the document, as the most appropriate spatial option and an alternative spatial option is detailed below. From a review of all options, an alternative strategy could combine the strengths of Options B (distribution across the settlement hierarchy) and Option C (focus on sustainable transport corridors), while avoiding too much of a focus on a large urban extension only approach. By doing so it an alternative approach would: • Prioritise brownfield and urban regeneration sites where available. • Direct growth to main towns (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford) but avoid an over reliance on a few very large urban extensions. • Support medium-scale growth at rail-served villages and key service centres (e.g. Lostock Gralam, Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham, Tarporley) through targeted Green Belt releases. • Allow smaller, proportionate growth in Local Service Centres and rural settlements to sustain schools, shops, and services. The benefits of an alternative proposition would be as follows: • Deliverable: it would avoid an over-reliance on a few large, infrastructure-heavy urban extensions that could delay. • Sustainable: it would support travel by train and bus, reduces car dependency, and strengthen smaller communities whereby development supports improved infrastructure. • Balanced: by doing so it would allow growth to be distributed fairly across towns, villages, and the rural area. • Defensible: it still allows for targeted Green Belt release where contributions to the Green Belt purposes to not strongly contribute. Overall, the key to this approach would be to spread growth across multiple settlements which reduces risk and ensures flexibility if some sites don’t come forward as planned.

Comment

Representation ID: 9125

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9618
The spatial strategy must accommodate the minimum housing requirement as established by the standard method and enable immediate growth to address the shortfall in homes within the council area. In accordance with the Spatial Strategy Principles, the strategy should direct development to the most sustainable areas, both within and on the edge of settlements. From a review of all options, an adaptation of Options B & C, with a greater focus on overall sustainability to include the presence/provision of local services and through matching housing growth with economic growth would be the most appropriate approach. By doing so, this alternative approach would: • Prioritise brownfield and urban regeneration sites where available. • Direct growth to main settlements (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford) but avoid an over reliance on a few very large urban extensions. Chester should be considered for a greater amount to align with economic ambitions. • Allow smaller, proportionate growth in Local Service Centres and rural settlements to sustain schools, shops, and services. The benefits of an alternative proposition would be as follows: • Deliverable: it would avoid an over-reliance on a few large, infrastructure-heavy urban extensions that could delay. • Sustainable: it would support travel by train and bus, reduces car dependency, and strengthen smaller communities whereby development supports improved infrastructure. • Balanced: by doing so it would allow growth to be distributed fairly across the key places, towns, villages, and the rural area. • Defensible: it still allows for targeted Green Belt release where contributions to the Green Belt purposes to not strongly contribute. Overall, the key to this approach would be to spread growth across multiple settlements which reduces risk and ensures flexibility if some sites don’t come forward as planned. This approach would enable settlements targeted for greater economic growth to sustainably meet increased housing requirements.

Comment

Representation ID: 9217

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9710
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: 9419

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9914
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: 9496

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jamie Dodd

I&O_9991
The development of house building should be focused around the larger connurbations of Winsford and Northwich, as Frodsham's character is defined by it's open, green spaces and this is very important to the visitor economy (e.g. Sandstone Trail).

Comment

Representation ID: 9572

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10067
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: 9686

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10182
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: 9806

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10303
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: 9919

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lyndsey Dodd

I&O_10416
The development of house building should be focused around the larger connurbations of Winsford and Northwich, as Frodsham's character is defined by it's open, green spaces and this is very important to the visitor economy (e.g. Sandstone Trail).

Comment

Representation ID: 9934

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Trish Pegg

SS12
I&O_10431
In response to a question at the council meeting concerning whether brownfield sites had been fully researched as options for housing, the response was they had not. Understandably, some brownfield developments would not be financially and practically suitable, but why would substantial pieces of land like the closed-down Wheatsheaf pub in Ness, and the row of disused buildings on Brook Street in Neston centre not be worthy of detailed research and considered? 

Comment

Representation ID: 9950

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rosemary Hollingsbee

SS12
I&O_10447
SS12 I would like to suggest a stronger policy of bringing back empty, and possibly currently unusable buildings, into use. I can see from SO9 of the current local plan, that you seem to think this will no longer be the answer and I agree it won’t solve the problem completely, but I would suggest you try harder in chasing absentee or irresponsible landlords. I was shocked to learn in October 2024 that there were about 720,000 empty properties in England. (ref BBC Indepth 20 th August 2025 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3r413l5n57o&ved=2ahUKEwjY_LHvr6qPAxU9VkEAHUDGOQoQFnoECBYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3bWdGd2OcU0D0yE087-hmU .)

Comment

Representation ID: 10624

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Dodd

I&O_11122
The development of house building should be focused around the larger connurbations of Winsford and Northwich, as Frodsham's character is defined by it's open, green spaces and this is very important to the visitor economy (e.g. Sandstone Trail). There is already an increasing z number of people visiting Delamere Forest adding to increased congestion on the roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 10785

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayfield Homes

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_11283
To further the strategy outlined in Option C, further emphasis should be given the release of Green Belt land along sustainable transport corridors. Taking forward this approach would allow strategically positioned sites to deliver required housing provisions across the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 10879

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Hall

Agent: Urban Imprint Limited

I&O_11377
Our client considers that a blend of options B and C will be most appropriate spatial strategy for the plan as a whole. Option A would simply result in disproportionate growth in Winsford and in the Middlewich hinterland, as well as pushing development into some of the more rural areas of the plan area. Compared to the current approach, a more dispersed approach of small and medium sized growth across a wider range of areas, including along transport corridors, might yield a more flexible and deliverable strategy. Option C has the benefit of maximizing the potential of some of the railway stations within the plan area – Acton Bridge being particularly relevant to our client’s site, only 1.5km along the local road network. This seems to be a sensible use of these high capacity transportation assets, many of which have been overlooked for the last 40 years within plan-making due to the presence of the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 10940

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Weaverham Parish Council

I&O_11438
We need to maximise the use of brown field sites rather than developing in the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 11146

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Zazel Carew

I&O_11644
Yes. If development is necessary, it should follow a “Brownfield First” strategy, prioritising previously developed land and urban infill, particularly in areas with existing infrastructure and transport links. This not only limits environmental impact but also helps regenerate under-utilised or neglected urban areas. Additionally, a more community-led development model could be considered. This would involve assessing housing and infrastructure needs in close collaboration with local stakeholders, ensuring growth is delivered where it is needed and supported, rather than imposed at the expense of treasured green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 11294

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11792
No

Comment

Representation ID: 11318

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Carew

I&O_11816
Yes. If development is necessary, it should follow a “Brownfield First” strategy, prioritising previously developed land and urban infill, particularly in areas with existing infrastructure and transport links. This not only limits environmental impact but also helps regenerate under-utilised or neglected urban areas. Additionally, a more community-led development model could be considered. This would involve assessing housing and infrastructure needs in close collaboration with local stakeholders, ensuring growth is delivered where it is needed and supported, rather than imposed at the expense of treasured green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 11512

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12010
Cheshire West and Chester has a significant border with Liverpool City Region. It should explore whether that region can accept any of its housing allocation – in addition to lobbying the government to reduce its housing figures. See our response to Q. SS 1.

Comment

Representation ID: 11709

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_12207
From a review of all options, an alternative strategy could combine the strengths of Options B (distribution across the settlement hierarchy) and Option C (focus on sustainable transport corridors), while avoiding too much of a focus on a large urban extension only approach. By doing so an alternative approach would: • Prioritise brownfield and urban regeneration sites where available. • Direct growth to main towns (Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich, Winsford) but avoid an over reliance on a few very large urban extensions. • Support medium-scale growth at rail-served villages and key service centres (e.g. Guilden Sutton, Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham, Tarporley) through targeted Green Belt releases. • Allow smaller, proportionate growth in Local Service Centres and rural settlements to sustain schools, shops, and services. The benefits of an alternative proposition would be as follows: • Deliverable: it would avoid an over-reliance on a few large, infrastructure-heavy urban extensions that could delay. • Sustainable: it would support travel by train and bus, reduces car dependency, and strengthen smaller communities whereby development supports improved infrastructure. • Balanced: by doing so it would allow growth to be distributed fairly across towns, villages, and the rural area. • Defensible: it still allows for targeted Green Belt release where contributions to the Green Belt purposes to not strongly contribute. Overall, the key to this approach would be to spread growth across multiple settlements which reduces risk and ensures flexibility if some sites don’t come forward as planned.

Comment

Representation ID: 11789

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Peel Ports Group Limited

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_12287
It is noted that all options are capable of accommodating at least 29,000 new homes and 149 hectares of employment land. Option C, which focuses on sustainable transport corridors, aligns most closely with the Manchester Ship Canal’s role as a low-carbon, resilient freight route. However, the draft consultation does not explicitly reference the Canal within these options. This represents a missed opportunity to recognise and embed its role in delivering sustainable growth. Accordingly, it is suggested that in the description of Option C (and subsequent preferred strategy), CWaCC should include the following text: “The Manchester Ship Canal will be recognised and promoted as a strategic sustainable transport corridor. Its wharves and associated infrastructure will be safeguarded to support modal shift, reduce carbon emissions from freight, and underpin the borough’s industrial and employment base.”  

Comment

Representation ID: 11859

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hargrave & Huxley Parish Council

I&O_12358
The Parish Council does not support Option A. However, we advocate for a blend of Option B and C with an increased emphasis on development at transportation nodes within the Borough to capitalize on naturally sustainable locations and to optimize the utilisation of brownfield land.

Comment

Representation ID: 12215

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jim Carew

SS 12
I&O_12729
A better alternative strategy would be to adopt an infrastructure-led brownfield site approach to prioritise improvement of existing urban areas, especially where infrastructure is already in place.