Comment

Representation ID: 181

Received: 15/07/2025

Respondent: Richard Cannon

I&O_204
OPtion B and Option C both inlcude far too much release of green belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 208

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Jamie Pugh

I&O_237
Allow some green belt development, but if placed in close proximity to communities it can disrupt (even destroy) those communities and their resources.   Ensure that transport links can be improved and that there are the resources and  space to do so. Protect home owners from potential house value drops. The majority of UK home owners rely upon their homes for retirement and financial security.    

Comment

Representation ID: 235

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: donna Jackson

I&O_265
No

Comment

Representation ID: 249

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Emma Malpeli

I&O_279

Comment

Representation ID: 287

Received: 20/07/2025

Respondent: Steven Cockburn

NA
I&O_317
Option C seems the most sensible of the three strategies that fairly develops the borough for the benefit of all residents.  

Comment

Representation ID: 332

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

SS 5
I&O_363
Questions SS 5–19 Spatial strategy options We do not consider that any single option, as presented in the document, is desirable. The Green Belt is particularly important as a Key Settlement Gap in protecting the separation between Chester and Ellesmere Port (see Map 5.5, Area EP01 for the danger) but results in a very large amount of development at Northwich and Winsford. (Option A). Option B, following the existing Local Plan, results in more development at Chester and Ellesmere Port but less at Winsford. Option C, Sustainable Transport Corridors, results in a more dispersed development pattern. This may be the best option, provided that development is relatively high density and is not allowed to sprawl, resulting in coalescence and unnecessary loss of Green Belt land. Is it not possible to encourage more development in the south of the borough, admittedly still in the countryside but outside the Green Belt? If this option were to be pursued, it would be important to ensure that local facilities were adequate to avoid unnecessary travel.

Comment

Representation ID: 690

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Hughes

I&O_776
Don't agree with delivery of homes in smaller villages which have no facilities and limited public transport connectivity. For example Acton Bridge has no school, gp, local shop etc. Whilst it has a train station, services are infrequent and do not connect to local towns etc - therefore all of these day to day trips would have to be by provate vehicle. Delivering more homes in places like this will encourage delivery of homes in unsustainable locations. 

Comment

Representation ID: 701

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Balchin

I&O_788
Retain green belt areas and ensure environmental considerations are taken into account more

Comment

Representation ID: 730

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Neil Cockburn

Option C
I&O_829
This option provides the better choice of the three limited options available.  It is fairer to all communities, and it recognises that green belt land must be released to achieve the potential shortfall in housing. I disagree, however, that a bus service of "one per hour" is a high enough frequency to support sustainable transport for employees attempting to travel to work from a new development.  Some local services (Winsford) do not run long enough throughout the day to accommodate shift working, for instance.  This definition needs urgent revision.

Comment

Representation ID: 1054

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Suzanne Turner

I&O_1159
None

Comment

Representation ID: 1280

Received: 02/08/2025

Respondent: Dr & Mrs JF & GM Higgs

I&O_1385
share the burden more evenly

Comment

Representation ID: 1412

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Les Smith

I&O_1517
No because the LPA is not in control of the provision of rail services. (What happened to re-instating the railway station at Beeston?)

Comment

Representation ID: 2194

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Thiemicke

Question SS 19
I&O_2314
Yes there are. Option A is best. The notion of a "sustainable transport corridor" is a flawed concept. It suggests that living within a 1/2 mile walk from a railway station will mean that all new residents will use the train to go everywhere. However, in reality, 99% of the time they will drive, and because they are further from the facilities (eg shops), it will mean more miles being driven rather than fewer.

Comment

Representation ID: 2221

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Stanley

I&O_2341
Avoid multipme developments along the same rail/bus corridor eg between Ellesmere Port and Chester, as it is likely to have agreater impact on Green Belt in those areas

Comment

Representation ID: 2337

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_2466
rural villages like willaston and Hooton and surrounding areas cannot cope with being a transport corridor, as its already over congested

Comment

Representation ID: 2451

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2580
see above

Comment

Representation ID: 2693

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: David Molyneaux

I&O_2846
Use brownfiled sites

Comment

Representation ID: 2819

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Smith

SS5
I&O_2989
SS5: Focus housing at travel hubs with significant capacity potential (e.g. rail stations) rather than in rural communities with no or minimal public transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 2831

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Eddleston

SS19
I&O_3001
More agricultural land being protected to replace land that is lost from the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2934

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Russell Baker

I&O_3108
My opinion is that the Option C strategy suggests too great a number of houses to be built in the very small settlements that happen to have a train station. It perhaps places too great an emphasis on the use of trains for getting to work (and occasionally for leisure) when the smaller settlements (not KSC / LSC) that contain a train station are themselves very small villages with such limited facilities as to not have been designated as even a Local Service Centre in previous Sustainability Appraisals. My comments are more related to the disproportionate nature of the significant amount of new dwellings that would be proposed under Option C relative to the existing number of housing stock. Other settlements of any scale would not have to accept an outsized expansion of their village or town, even when they do have significant facilities. However, I do support a number of new dwellings in small settlements with a train station to proportionately encourage sustainable transport. Taking Acton Bridge, for example, the train station is a well used link on the significant Crewe to Liverpool line. People come to the station from outside of Acton Bridge by car to use the facility. On one hand, any additional houses in the village couldn't be expected to all make use of the train station every day for work purposes. Some would work from home. Some would still use car journeys to get to work. There is also a bus route available for some. On the other hand Acton Bridge is within 1600m of the notable facilities (Schools, shops, services) that are located within Weaverham and the Station Road connection has a pavement and street lights for safe access. This is a longer walk (or cycle ride) than the preferred 800m walking distance, but it isn't beyond what is reasonable. New development that may come forwards in Weaverham itself may bring development up to the A49 which would mean houses within Weaverham being only 600m or so away from the Acton Bridge settlement. So, my nuanced conclusion is that Acton Bridge could take some new dwellings proportionate to its size and well related to its existing character. Smaller, and therefore more bespoke, developments could be encouraged. It may be that Acton Bridge (plus Moudlsworth, Delamere, Capenhurst, Lostock Gralam, Hooton, Elton) could become a designated settlement in the Local Plan not disimilar to the previous Local Service Centre, but with a different/new title (Local Transport Centre?) to reflect that the main attraction is sustainable transport, rather than good facilities. This could then give rise to a maximum number of houses proportionate to the village size i.e. 20 or 50 that could be more controlled and more acceptable to the residents. You would then want to encourage some additional facilities in to the village as the number of houses grows. A local shop for example. Again, Weaverham shops are so close by and is the previous / next stop on the bus route. CIL would be collected for the new dwellings and a useable proportion of that, presumably, passed to the Parish Council for appropriate useage. Acton Bridge might benefit from some specific other funds for facilities alongside being designated within a new Local Plan. Many thanks.  

Comment

Representation ID: 3003

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare McIlraith

I&O_3177
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 3031

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Beryl Prior

I&O_3205
Option C is my preferred choice.  The one an hour bus service is NOT suitable for people travelling to work from a new development.  Winsford's bus service is woefully inadequate,there is NO service on a Sunday and evening buses cease around 7pm  

Comment

Representation ID: 3074

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Ian Madej

I&O_3248
Option C in its current form is not appropriate. However, if the Council insists on developing a corridor-based strategy, it would need to be fundamentally reshaped to make it more sustainable and consistent with national policy. Suggested changes to Option C Re-define “sustainable transport corridors” Corridors should only be considered sustainable if they meet clear tests: frequent, reliable, and accessible public transport (including full disabled access and safe cycle links), adequate parking provision at rail stations , integration with local employment, education, and health facilities. Many locations currently identified, such as Acton Bridge , fail these tests and must be excluded. Green Belt safeguard Option C must state explicitly that proximity to a rail line or major road does not in itself create exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release . Any development along corridors must be strictly brownfield-first and avoid encroachment on the countryside. Infrastructure alignment Corridor-based growth must only proceed where there is demonstrable capacity in schools, health services, utilities, and local road networks, or where infrastructure investment is guaranteed in advance. Without this, growth will simply exacerbate car dependency and congestion. Avoid coalescence and sprawl The strategy should include safeguards against ribbon development or the coalescence of villages. Distinct settlement identities and countryside gaps must be protected. HRA compliance The HRA Screening (June 2025) highlights risks in Northwich, Weaverham, and Acton Bridge. Option C must avoid allocations in areas where recreational disturbance, air quality deterioration, or traffic impacts on designated habitats cannot be mitigated. Prioritise regeneration within corridors Where corridors pass through urban centres (e.g. Chester–Ellesmere Port, or Northwich town centre), priority should be given to brownfield redevelopment and intensification , not new Green Belt release. Conclusion: If Option C is to be pursued at all, it must be radically reshaped into a “brownfield-first corridor strategy” with strict sustainability tests, infrastructure alignment, and Green Belt safeguards. Without these changes, it remains unsound and inconsistent with the NPPF (2024), Sustainability Appraisal (June 2025), and HRA Screening (June 2025) .

Comment

Representation ID: 3181

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Acton Bridge Parish Council

I&O_3355
Investigate properly to identify correctly whether it really is a sustainable transport route.

Comment

Representation ID: 3244

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Fairbanks

I&O_3418
Focus development in Chester, and northern centres which are well connected. The alternative is building a train/tram line or a new A road to Farndon etc !

Comment

Representation ID: 3310

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: claire hepworth

I&O_3484
rural villages like willaston and Hooton and surrounding areas cannot cope with being a transport corridor, as its already over congested

Comment

Representation ID: 3448

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Edward Holmes

I&O_3622
Don' adopt it

Comment

Representation ID: 3509

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_3683
SS19 Consider a new transport corridor. The river weaver is a major constraint on travel, with it's limited crossings being a signifcant contributor to congestion. Rumours have persisted for decades about a trunk road from J12 of the M56 linking to the A49 towards Aston. Whilst I acknowledge impact to greenbelt of such a development, it would offer significantly short journey times across the county and offer the opportunity for new communities to be established along its path.

Comment

Representation ID: 3549

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3723
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 3969

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Perry

I&O_4151
Overburdens Neston until satisfactory rail link improvements made