Comment

Representation ID: 4046

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: ROBERT MCSWEENEY

I&O_4254
Little Leigh Parish Council has no suggestions here and believes that Option A is the  appropriate strategy. 

Comment

Representation ID: 4105

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Terence Nolan

SS5 Question SS19
I&O_4334
I reject Option C

Comment

Representation ID: 4188

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4417
some improvements possible: Frodsham and Neston are not the same, given the Frodsham’s better road network Settlements near urban centres such as Mickle Trafford, Christleton & Waverton should be considered too (in the same way as the other service centres). With improvements in bus service and bus lanes to access urban centre these would be more sustainable locations than Tattenhall or Malpas Notable that Kelsall is one KSC without a bus corridor Some rural station settlements would need some road improvements at a key junction, such as Delamere and Acton Bridge. Acton Bridge is not a suitable location for up to 500 homes. It may have a station but is has nothing else.

Comment

Representation ID: 4467

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barnton Parish Council

I&O_4726
 make rural  locations non car dependant by provision of better transport links

Comment

Representation ID: 4606

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Cathy Thiemicke

Q SS 19
I&O_4892
Option A instead

Comment

Representation ID: 4638

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Norley Parish Council

I&O_4927
Do not attempt to develop minor transport links which would just be making a problem looking for a solution

Comment

Representation ID: 4661

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4957
SS19 I emphasise that I prefer Option A: protect the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 4767

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5104
This feels like an option developed from on-paper information rather than actual local context. Some of the areas suggested will not be able to cope with the level of developments suggested, and some of the existing infrastructure is just not suitable. For example, the scale of development suggested for Frodsham and Neston in this option is damagingly high, while the levels of the main settlements is not high enough. Equally an emphasis seems to be on somewhere like Neston due to its status as a market town and that is has a train station. However, the station is not connected directly to any major urban area (e.g. Liverpool, Chester, Manchester, London) and in reality residents of the area all drive down small lanes to catch trains from other stations in the region. The reality of life in the area is not the same as it may appear in the data.

Comment

Representation ID: 4928

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Szostek

I&O_5287
A strategy based on sustainable transport corridors is not logical.  Is there a need to travel, and if so, from where to where.  The exisitng transport corridors look better on a map, than they really are. Rail North/South limited by the two track viaduct over the Weaver.  Rail East/West archaic and slow.

Comment

Representation ID: 5041

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5400
It may be appropriate if it included more extensive urban development around: Chester; Ellesmere Port; Northwich; and Winsford

Comment

Representation ID: 5154

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Barry

I&O_5518
he sustainable transport strategy - Option C is unrealistic as adding 3,000 houses to the 4,000 already in Frodsham will radically alter all the Local Plan principles and will require a significant investment to invrease capacity of both Transport for Wales and Northern links to Manchester and Liverpool.  It is unrealistic to expect lots of poeple living in the 3,000 new houses to be able to access local stations at Helsby, Frodsham, Delamere and Mouldsworth without a major investment in car parking at / near these stations.  If not there will be increse parking in lcoal strets and incrwse congestion. There is little possibility of generating 6,500 new jobs in Frodsham, if the occupants of the 3,000 new houses in Option C are to live / work within a 15 minute neigbourhood. An extra 6,500 cars on local or long joiurneys will overload the already stretched existing local road network and necessitate construction of a new junction 13 on the M56. In short Option C is a non-starter.

Comment

Representation ID: 5201

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Leigh Wakefield

I&O_5565
This is only appropriate if a more detailed investigation is conducted to ensure that the location is genuinely appropriate - at the moment this is very rough cut. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5218

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Hutchinson

Q SS 19
I&O_5582
Frodsham and Neston cannot possibly absorb such large expansion. Winsford can probably accomodate more than this, if it is given the additional infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 5242

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Morlidge

I&O_5606
Put a decent high speed bus on from Winsford to Chester. Build near motorway junctions

Comment

Representation ID: 5359

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Penmar Farming Limited

Option C
I&O_5729
No, for the reasons set out in response to question SS18.

Comment

Representation ID: 5458

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Michael Webb

I&O_5830
I do not feel Option C is appropriate, but if the Council were to pursue a transport corridor strategy then major changes would be needed. Green Belt protection. The biggest flaw in this option is the huge amount of Green Belt release it requires. This should be scaled back significantly, with a clear “brownfield-first” policy so that railway and bus corridor growth focuses on previously developed land within existing towns and villages. Public transport guarantees. It is unrealistic to assume that people will give up car use without major investment in bus and rail services. If this option is taken forward, the Council should secure binding commitments with transport providers for higher frequencies, longer service hours, and affordable fares before large-scale housing is built. Infrastructure first. Settlements like Helsby, Frodsham and Cuddington cannot absorb significant growth unless new schools, GP provision, and safe walking and cycling routes are delivered first. These villages already feel stretched, and more housing without services would make the situation unsustainable. Safeguards against sprawl. Development along corridors should be planned carefully to prevent the merging of settlements. Buffer zones and clear separation between communities must be retained to protect village identity and rural character. Balanced growth. Employment allocations under this option should prioritise high-quality, sustainable jobs, not just logistics and warehousing that bring more HGV traffic. Even with these changes, I feel Option A (Retain the Green Belt) is a far stronger and more sustainable option for Cheshire West. Option C risks losing too much countryside while failing to deliver the transport improvements needed to make it truly viable.

Comment

Representation ID: 5548

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Dan Marr

I&O_5920
Option C focuses on a good principle of transport connections. Nonetheless, I feel it does not take into account the additional infrastructure requirements needed for better connectivity (parking and accomodation at the existing stations, which are not sufficient for existing service levels, let alone growth). This still focuses more weight towards the south of Northwich compared to Winsford, which is better served with existing infrasture provisions compared to Davenham and Moulton. There should still be greater focus towards developing the northern sides of Northwich, as well as some smaller villages which are directly connected to railway stations (Mouldsworth, Delemere) vs indirect connections in locations like Davenham. I do support that there ought to be greater focus on developments in Winsford to provide 10,000+ houses, but this should be considered a greater focus than the Southern reaches of Northwich. Equally, Ellesmere Port and Chester ought to see more focus compared to locations like Helsby and Frodsham. Farndon, Tarporley, Cuddington and Sandiway are being punished for being more rural and the distribution of new housing is disproportiante both to need and location, where many northern areas are unaffected. Nonetheless, this does more equitably assign housing in a fairer manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 5581

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: DERWENT DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Agent: ATP

I&O_5953
We would suggest the adoption of an amended version of Option C. That would take opportunities for smaller developments adjoining existing settlements (other than infill or PDL) and would also have better regard for locational sustainability. Whilst we agree that more focus should be given to encouraging development close to rural train stations, that should form part of a wider approach in terms of locational sustainability. That would include giving proper consideration to sites within credible walking distances of public transport infrastructure (train and bus) and local services.  We particularly note the opportunity for greater development in Wincham and Higher Wincham, and in that context the proximity to Lolstock Gralam train station is important. Empirical evidence demonstrates that walk distances of more than 1600m are acceptable and that would mean that development in or edge of Higher Wincham would be acceptably located in terms of proximity to bus routes and local services.  The list of identified settlements should also include Wincham.

Comment

Representation ID: 5726

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Manning

I&O_6098
Separate Option B and Option C contents. Options are too broad.

Comment

Representation ID: 5736

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sharon Cope

I&O_6108
Would not support this; Option C; the Neston and Parkgate area could not sustain this level of infrastructure development without impacting on the necessary green belt protection and its importance to the local nature reserves.

Comment

Representation ID: 5886

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_6271
The greenbelt is there for a reason and people choose to live in a rural community for a reason. Destroying the greenbelt is not justifiable given the importance of agricultural land as critical national infrastructure and the loss of biodiversity that is occuring in the uk.

Comment

Representation ID: 6037

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andy McGovern

I&O_6426
Accept that the train services operating from many of the locations you've chosen is woefully inadequate and the residents would be forced to use cars anyway. Therefore undermining the whole reason behind option C.

Comment

Representation ID: 6055

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

I&O_6444
I would say that Option C is a problem in some areas such as Frodsham. Yes there are rails and bus links but there are already problems with congestion at peak times and when there are problems on the motorway as there is no ather way round. Also the local infrastructure I don't think can cope in some areas with the amount of development proposed and I haven't seen plans for improved health services etc that would be needed. As suggested before, create a new town or village with appropriate infrastructure on transport routes with new railway station or bus stops, schools and health centre etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 6213

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6611
5 | SS 19 If you do not feel that Option C is an appropriate spatial strategy option, are there any changes that you could suggest?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base Option C should only be considered where transport capacity already exists or is fully funded. For Frodsham, this is not the case: the A56 AQMA is over capacity, rail services are hourly and overcrowded, and bus services are in decline. FNHP’s SEA concluded only ~97 homes could be delivered sustainably, mainly through brownfield and windfall sites.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood Even if transport improvements were delivered, Option C would still place pressure on Green Belt and ecological corridors adjoining Hob Hey Wood. As ancient woodland and a designated Local Green Space, Hob Hey must be treated as an absolute constraint.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour supports a public transport-first planning model, but never at the expense of countryside or irreplaceable habitats. Option C could only be viable if: Rail and bus upgrades are guaranteed and delivered first, not promised later. Sensitive ecological corridors are excluded from consideration. Infrastructure-first rules ensure schools, GPs, drainage, and broadband are delivered before or alongside new homes.   🧠 Wider Context Bourland: climate-friendly transport must be backed by real delivery, not aspiration. Gallent: warns that “corridor growth” too often produces commuter sprawl instead of affordable housing. Ferriday (2025): highlights the risks of “housing without infrastructure”– homes already being built with failing water pressure, inadequate sewers, no broadband, vanishing bus services, and worsening congestion. Without guarantees, Option C risks replicating these failures in North Cheshire.   📌 Important Considerations Option C could only be considered with major amendments: Growth tied to funded and committed infrastructure (rail upgrades, reliable bus networks, water and sewerage capacity, digital connectivity). Exclusion of ancient woodland and ecological corridors such as Hob Hey Wood and surrounding areas. Cumulative traffic and flood impacts assessed across corridors, not just at site level. Mandatory infrastructure delivery tests — no homes without essential services in place. As drafted, Option C is not appropriate. It should be amended so that corridor growth is only pursued where infrastructure is guaranteed upfront and never at the expense of ancient woodland, Green Belt, or public health. Without these safeguards, Option C risks creating the very failures already seen elsewhere in England: homes with no schools, no GPs, no broadband, and overloaded roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 6520

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Marshall

I&O_6936
Option C is not appropriate because it relies on a flawed assumption that existing rail and bus routes can accommodate significant new housing. In reality, transport services in areas like Marbury remain limited, infrequent and unreliable. Rural residents are and will remain car-first in accessing jobs, schools and services. This option also requires the largest Green Belt release – over 12,000 homes – creating linear sprawl along corridors and eroding the distinct identity of our towns and villages. Critical infrastructure constraints such as Winnington Bridge already compromise Northwich, and Option C would intensify these pressures without deliverable solutions. Sustainable transport must be improved, but it cannot be used as the basis for large-scale development allocations at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 6598

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Will Holden

I&O_7018
There are too many new houses proposed in green belt towns and not enough outside of the green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 6765

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Malpeli

ss19
I&O_7192
use brownfield sites

Comment

Representation ID: 6966

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7434
More information on housing numbers for specific smaller settlements, at the moment it is a vague and will be subject to interpretation and lead to ineffective planning. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7133

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Davies

I&O_7605
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 7175

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Michael O'Sullivan

I&O_7650
Rural villages like Willaston/Hooton cannot further cope with traffic density, let alone with Neston.