Comment

Representation ID: 7293

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Fryer

I&O_7773
There is no sustainable transport links. Trains are only once an hour ,a dm the bus service scarce. These need to improve .

Comment

Representation ID: 7353

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7833
No. Just follow Option A - Retain Green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7468

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7948
Build on derelict land and buildings in cities

Comment

Representation ID: 7546

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Traynor

I&O_8026
No amandment would make this option accetpable.

Comment

Representation ID: 8182

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Rose Consulting

I&O_8671
It is considered that this proposal should be included within your Option C. I was surprised not to see it as part of your consultation? Beeston Reclamation Yard and adjacent MOD land, Whitchurch Road, Beeston

Comment

Representation ID: 9091

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Northstone

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9584
Northstone support Option C, which focuses growth along key transport corridors. This approach is more consistent with national and local objectives on sustainability, climate, and infrastructure delivery and improves deliverability, and flexibility, ensuring housing needs are met throughout the plan period. Growth at settlements served by strong transport infrastructure (e.g. Lostock Gralam, Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham) is supported as it reduces car dependency and provides access to sustainable travel with Lostock Gralambenefiting from a railway station on the Mid-Cheshire Line, bus connections, and strategic access via the A556. This allows for the site to be well connected to jobs which link to economic growth. Whilst Northstone support this approach, it is clear for a review of the published options maps that some settlements do need further consideration as to the level of housing they can provide when factoring in constraints and logical locations for development. One example is around Elton, as whilst it is acknowledged that there is a train station, it should be questioned whether it is appropriate to deliver housing adjacent to large employment works (e.g. ELT02) or isolated within major roads (e.g. ELT04). Similarly, in areas around Hooton Station, it appears that housing options would appear isolated and aren’t necessarily the most logical place for housing. As detailed in the following response, whilst we’re generally supportive of Option C as presented, however we advise on an alternative approach utilising the same principles but drawing in an element of Option B whereby the strategy establishes a greater distribution level but is also where it is most logical and appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 9133

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_9626
Option C should be reviewed to further consider appropriate locations well connected to the principal settlements identified within the Settlement Hierarchy by bus, as well as train. As part of this exercise, settlements should also be assessed against the local services and facilities available, and the opportunity for genuinely sustainable alternatives such as encouraging active travel (cycling and walking). Furthermore, additional development must be allocated to Chester, through a series of modest urban extensions and individual sites to meet the housing needs of the city.

Comment

Representation ID: 10652

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sandra Stonham

Agent: Marrons

I&O_11150
The proposed urban extensions around Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford are more modest in Option C. However, the Council notes that this approach could potentially adding to the impression of urban sprawl and the merging of settlements. If this growth strategy is taken forward, the Council should undertake an updated Landscape Study, including the identification of key settlement gaps and their functionality, to inform decisions on the best locations for growth, that also protect local distinctiveness and existing communities.

Comment

Representation ID: 10689

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Farndon Parish Council

I&O_11187
Please see the response on behalf of Farndon Parish Council to question SS18.

Comment

Representation ID: 11090

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Tata Chemicals Europe Limited

Agent: Axis

I&O_11588
While Option C offers a broadly positive approach by focusing growth in and adjacent to sustainable transport corridors, there are concerns that if the strategy is applied too rigidly it would overlook the important role of strategic brownfield and employment sites that fall outside the immediate influence of existing sustainable transport corridors. For example, the redevelopment potential at the Winnington Works Site is significant and should be positively supported in the new Local Plan, regardless of whether it is located directly within a transport corridor. Similarly, planning permission for the development of a solar park and battery energy storage facility has recently been secured at the Winnington Limebeds, an opportunity that would not have arisen from a corridor-based strategy but is nonetheless essential to meeting local and national climate objectives. The Lostock Works Site is safeguarded for waste management development and has capacity for industrial and commercial uses that would make more effective use of underutilised brownfield land. However, these opportunities are primarily linked to the site’s established industrial function, existing infrastructure, and strategic role, rather than its direct relationship with transport corridors. A spatial strategy that prioritises corridors without sufficient flexibility could therefore risk constraining or delaying development in locations that are otherwise well suited for growth and are critical to meeting borough-wide needs. Accordingly, while the principles underpinning Option C are supported, the strategy should be amended to ensure that major brownfield, industrial, and energy-related sites are explicitly recognised as priority development locations, regardless of their relationship to transport corridors. This would deliver a more balanced approach that captures the benefits of sustainable transport connectivity while also securing enhancements to the transport network in areas that are not located in or adjacent to existing transport corridors, as well as the regeneration of strategic sites that are fundamental to the Council’s housing, employment, and climate change objectives.

Comment

Representation ID: 11181

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mineral Products Association Ltd

SS 19
I&O_11679
We have no preference for either Option A, B or C, however, we seek assurances that whichever Option is pursued due regard is given to mineral safeguarding and that mineral resources and infrastructure are not needlessly sterilised.

Comment

Representation ID: 11269

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Habiko LLP (c/o Muse)

Agent: Turley

I&O_11767
Please refer to response to Question SS 11 (I&O_11756)

Comment

Representation ID: 11301

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

I&O_11799
The public transport services are not good enough in some towns and villages. Train and bus services are not co-ordinated, and don’t serve enough rural areas. Residents will still have to use cars to get to transport hubs and are like to need to drive children to nursery/school on their way to work. There is often insufficient parking at transport hubs

Comment

Representation ID: 11455

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Bowle

I&O_11953
Totally rejected/ opposed . To model housing around availability of an already overcrowded, infrequent and slow Rail service is fundamentally flawed.  Manchester- Chester via Frodsham and Manchester- Chester via mouldsworth ( try travelling on that one!) services are poor – people  resort to using their cars with additional burden on country roads and parking I don’t want to walk down to Hob Hey wood in Frodsham through a housing estate!!

Comment

Representation ID: 11519

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12017
There is no way this option could be made sustainable. It should not receive further consideration.

Comment

Representation ID: 11725

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Beck Homes Limited

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_12223
For Housing Development this option includes: • A wider distribution pattern of development • More modest urban extensions around Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford. • Smaller settlements with a rail station, such as Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham and Neston and Parkgate would take a bigger role in accommodating development. • Total Green Belt release of sites to deliver 12,000 homes. • Potential for further development in rural area and in places along bus corridors including: Farndon, Malpas, Tarporley, Tarvin and Tattenhall. • Potential for enhanced role around rural rail stations including; Acton Bridge, Capenhurst, Delamere, Elton, Hooton, Lostock Gralam and Mouldsworth. Option C provides a strong basis for a spatial strategy, directing growth to settlements served by strong transport infrastructure (e.g. Chester and its surrounding areas including Guilden Sutton). This is supported as it reduces car dependency and provides access to sustainable travel with Guilden Sutton being served by the number 26 bus route which links to Chester and Ellesmere Port. Chester Train Station is approximately three miles west of the site, which is easily accessible by a 20-minute cycle or a 10-minute commute via bus/car. However, Option C currently fails to identify sufficient land to support an appropriate amount of growth for Chester, in accordance with the Settlement Hierarchy and economic ambitions. Furthermore, the sites identified for development around rural rail stations fail to fully consider the principles of sustainable development; many of the locations would be unsuitable for housing due to a lack of services and facilities. As such, Option C is not an appropriate spatial strategy in its current form. We would advocate on an alternative approach utilising the same principles but drawing in an element of Option B whereby the strategy establishes a greater distribution level but is also where it is most logical and appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 11858

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hargrave & Huxley Parish Council

I&O_12357
The key difference with this option is that new homes would be focused in and around settlements on the rail network and main bus route corridors. The principle of this approach makes sense but needs to be done in a considered manner adopting a brownfield first approach that ensures that the local facilities can support the nature of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12019

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs R Basford

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_12533
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns, Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’  In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). This aligns with our response to Question SS 13 (I&O_12527).

Comment

Representation ID: 12068

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Beneficiaries of E C Francis

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_12582
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns, Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’ In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). This aligns with our response to Question SS 13.

Comment

Representation ID: 12381

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Caldwell

I&O_12897
No Cuts across many of the principles and Government advice.

Comment

Representation ID: 12622

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Varley

I&O_13139
This option is based on a vision of transport in the area that is disconnected from reality. To use Frodsham as an example, the town's bus services and trains are infrequent, and substantial congestion in and out of the town during peak hours is already a significant issue. The idea that a town such as Frodsham could take on significant development because of its transport infrastructure is completely wrong: development on this scale would leave the town's transport capacity overwhelmed and paralysed.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13380

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Felicity Taylor

I&O_13899
Why are you placing less development in Chester, Ellesmere Port and Winsford, as these are among the most accessible locations in the plan area? The level of potential development assumed for places along the Chester - Manchester rail route (Mouldsworth, Delamere and Cuddington and Sandiway) and at Acton Bridge are completely inappropriate to the existing size and capacity of those settlements and to their degree of accessibility by public transport and private transport. The rail route currently has an hourly, slow service that is not likely to be improved, a very poor bus service and you would be packing the roads with fume emitting cars! Think of your road capacity!! Moreover, there is not significant areas of previously developed land near to the railways stations, as implied in the text and would all necessitate large removals from the Green Belt. Maybe a visit out might be more beneficial than just stabbing at a map in a remote office!!! It is good that we can comment but as the plan is huge and full of options I hope that due regard will be paid to mine and others comments regarding the above.

Comment

Representation ID: 13450

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Turley

I&O_13969
Harworth notes that while the Council suggests each of the three growth options could accommodate at least 29,000 dwellings - potentially meeting the minimum housing needs over a 15-year period according to the standard method - further evidence is needed to substantiate whether this is realistically achievable. Moreover, any of the growth options must also align with the Council’s commitment to delivering 149 hectares of employment land, as outlined in the Economic Needs Assessment. This figure is critical for ensuring that sufficient land is available to support job creation, economic development, and local businesses. However, the ability to meet both housing and employment land requirements within the chosen spatial strategy will depend on a more robust assessment of the land supply and infrastructure readiness across the Borough. At this stage, Harworth does not deem it appropriate or feasible to determine which of the proposed spatial strategy options is most suitable, as further evidence is required to evidence that CWAC claim that all three options can meet the identified need is realistically achievable. This includes detailed studies into the availability of land for development, infrastructure capacity, and the suitability of different areas to support the anticipated growth. Notwithstanding that, Harworth believes that any approach that does not involve a level of Green Belt release is unlikely to be appropriate. Such an approach is unlikely to adequately address local housing and employment needs within the Borough, and could result in an unsustainable spatial strategy. Ultimately Harworth urges the Council to ensure that whichever spatial strategy is chosen provides sufficient housing and employment sites to meet the needs housing and employment needs for the borough and that of Middlewich.

Comment

Representation ID: 13871

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Martin

I&O_14391
The proposed 1500-3000 homes is a ridiculous proposal. And would completely and disastrously change the character of this relatively small market down . The significant loss off green space and countryside is unacceptable. The current road network is already busy and can be dangerous and particularly Wood Lane which is unadopted, the Runnel and Leighton Road are very minor narrow country roads with limited capacity. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14135

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Crew

I&O_14679
The Local Plan should not be planning from the point of view that every settlement should receive a set quota of new houses.  Housing should be planned on the basis of need to provide for the people employed in the area, or on reasonable public transport routes to it.   Greenbelt has been established to protect our country from urban sprawl.  I believe that, wherever possible, building on it should be avoided.    If sustainable transport is high on the agenda, then Option C which emphasises growth around railway stations would appear to be the best choice, but only if the transport system is improved.  Many local residents work in Liverpool, Manchester and further afield and services must be improved if they are to be encouraged to leave their cars at home.  The times taken to get to these centres of employment by public transport are too long and compare unfavourably with taking a car. 

Comment

Representation ID: 14236

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14780
The public transport services are not good enough in some towns and villages. Train and bus services are not co-ordinated, and don’t serve enough rural areas. Residents will still have to use cars to get to transport hubs and are like to need to drive children to nursery/school on their way to work. There is often insufficient parking at transport hubs.

Comment

Representation ID: 14557

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julia Pickering

I&O_15103
In my view it is totally inappropriate to release Green Belt land to build 12000 homes. Option A allows for growth and development without releasing a further Green Belt land. This would mean that no priority will be given to redeveloping brownfield sites and breathing new life into urban areas that need regeneration. As noted in the examiner’s report, any additional release of greenbelt land around Chester would have a significant adverse effect on the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 14677

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Homes North West Ltd

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15227
Miller Homes support the overall aim of Option C, which focuses growth along key transport corridors. This approach is more consistent with national and local objectives on sustainability, climate, and infrastructure delivery and improves deliverability, and flexibility, ensuring housing needs are met throughout the plan period. Growth at settlements served by strong transport infrastructure (e.g. Lostock Gralam, Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham) is supported as it reduces car dependency and provides access to sustainable travel. Whilst Miller Homes support this approach; it is clear from a review of the published options maps that some settlements do need further consideration to the level of housing they can provide when factoring in constraints and logical locations for development. One example is around Elton, as whilst it is acknowledged that there is a train station, it should be questioned whether it is appropriate to deliver housing adjacent to large employment works (e.g. ELT02) or isolated within major roads (e.g. ELT04). Similarly, in areas around Hooton Station, it appears that housing options would appear isolated and aren’t necessarily the most logical place for housing. Whilst we’re generally supportive of Option C as presented, we advise on an alternative approach that adopts the same principles but includes an element of Option B which would ensure the strategy establishes a greater distribution of development across the borough but also where the development is most logical and appropriate like Millers site in Davenham.

Comment

Representation ID: 14759

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: The Smith Family

Agent: NJL Consulting

I&O_15309
Our client supports the overall aim of Option C, which focuses growth along key transport corridors. This approach is more consistent with national and local objectives on sustainability, climate, and infrastructure delivery and improves deliverability, and flexibility, ensuring housing needs are met throughout the plan period. Growth at settlements served by strong transport infrastructure (e.g. Lostock Gralam, Cuddington & Sandiway, Helsby, Frodsham) is supported as it reduces car dependency and provides access to sustainable travel. Whilst this approach is supported; it is clear from a review of the published options maps that some settlements do need further consideration to the level of housing they can provide when factoring in constraints and logical locations for development. One example is around Elton, as whilst it is acknowledged that there is a train station, it should be questioned whether it is appropriate to deliver housing adjacent to large employment works (e.g. ELT02) or isolated within major roads (e.g. ELT04). Similarly, in areas around Hooton Station, it appears that housing options would appear isolated and aren’t necessarily the most logical place for housing. Whilst we’re generally supportive of Option C as presented, we advise on an alternative approach that adopts the same principles but includes an element of Option B which would ensure the strategy establishes a greater distribution of development across the borough in sites such as Hollow Lane, Kingsley.

Comment

Representation ID: 14812

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Mitchell

Agent: Grimster Planning

I&O_15363
It is considered that the strategy should provide an indicative, minimum, housing target for the Main Towns, Larger Villages and Smaller Villages, and the remainder of the rural area. These should only be indicative, and not treated as a ‘cap.’ In respect of remainder of the rural area, it is considered that Option C should be amended to support and facilitate lower levels of growth in the rural parts of the Borough (i.e those parts of the rural area that sit below the existing Local Service Centre tier of the adopted Local Plan), something which the policies of the adopted Local Plan do not currently support and facilitate (save for conversion schemes and rural workers dwellings). This aligns with our response to Question SS 13.