Comment

Representation ID: 7090

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7562
CH01 only

Comment

Representation ID: 7258

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: aaron vandermark

I&O_7738
CH03 and CH04

Comment

Representation ID: 7368

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7848
Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 7523

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Nuala Floyd

I&O_8003
I would be  concerned about development in the CH03 area as having experienced the development of 1400 houses with no infrastructure improvements and the dailsy battle across the River is increasingly fraught. Overleigh roundabout is often gridlocked at all different time of the day. Once the schools return the full impact of the development will be felt. No road satisfactory road improvement habe been undertaken. No promised facilities have materialised as yet . The full impact of the development has not been absorbed into the area and no further development should take place south of the river until the impact has settled.  Potential of expanding The Dale could be explored but again if appropriate infra structure is planned  

Comment

Representation ID: 7863

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8352
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 7883

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Graham and Caroline Russell

SS23
I&O_8372
None of the identified growth areas around Chester or the potential sites identified in the Land Availability Assessment – Stage 1 report identified in Waverton are suitable. All have substantial flaws as outlined in our answer to Question SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 8074

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8563
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 8250

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8739
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 8403

Received: 17/09/2025

Respondent: Flintshire County Council

I&O_8894
In response to Question SS23 it is only considered necessary to comment on potential growth areas CH04 and CH03, as these are located closest to Flintshire. Area CH04 is for housing and wraps around the northern edge of Blacon and adjoins the Flintshire boundary and designated green wedge. A release of the green belt to accommodate this development would have the effect of extending development alongside the County boundary and green wedge rather than development reducing the open gap between Chester and Flintshire settlements. The document recognises that there is a large amount of technical work to be done to assess these potential growth areas and the Local Planning Authority stress that this would need to include the effect of traffic on the A548 which is an important distributor road between Chester and Deeside. Area CH03 is for housing and represents a southerly extension to the existing Wrexham Road housing developments which are under construction and which followed a drawing back of the green belt. In broad terms the proposed growth area appears to represent a logical and sustainable urban extension within strong physical boundaries represented by the railway line to the west, the A55 to the south and Wrexcham Road to the east. Whilst a significant release of Green belt, the potential growth area does not adjoining the County boundary, nor increase the likelihood of coalescence with a Flintshire settlement. As with CH04 these potential growth areas would need an assessment of the effect of traffic on the A55 which is an important trunk road and the junction with Wrexham Road in terms of congestion. Members also raised several additional and related points to those contained in the report specifically in relation to future growth options for Chester, and asked officers to also relay these to you. These additional comments emanate from the main report and seek to highlight Member’s concerns at emerging options and potential pressures from growth on the border with Flintshire. The additional comments are:   The location of a significant growth option area around Blacon could place significant pressure on the adjacent area in North East Flintshire, undermining the principle of the Green Wedge in that area in Flintshire and increasing pressure for further land release. The potential growth area to the couth of Chester and adjacent to the Flintshire border has the potential to place significant surface water drainage and flood risk pressure on the natural catchment in that location that drains through land between Broughton and Saltney and into the R Dee. These areas already experience repeated issues with flooding and any significant upstream development that seeks to place more water in this system, however attenuated, runs the risk of making this situation more serious. There is already an apparent effect being felt in the catchment from the new housing being constructed at the Posthouse Roundabout and any further significant development is a cause for significant concern to the Council. Members raised concerns about the potential growth areas around Chester and their impacts on the local and regional highway network, both from the perspective of the capacity of the existing network, and also the sustainable access to employment opportunities where reliance on the private car would be the likely outcome of locating growth, given the lack of local and regional proposals to improve public transport to facilitate sustainable travel to work between the Chester area and Flintshire, which is already a significant daily flow.

Comment

Representation ID: 8460

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8951
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 8484

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Chester Green Belt Alliance

I&O_8975
We do not think any of the identified potential growth areas around Chester are suitable. They all suffer from the flaws we have identified in our answer to SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 8587

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Great Boughton Parish Council

SS23
I&O_9078
Great Boughton Parish Council does not think any of the identified potential growth areas around Chester are suitable. They all suffer from the flaws we have identified in our answer to SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 8647

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9138
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 8686

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Carol and Daniel Morgan

SS23
I&O_9178
Question SS 23 – Which of the identified potential growth areas around Chester do you consider to be the most suitable? None. We do not consider any of the identified growth areas to be suitable, for reasons set out in our response to Question SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 8821

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9314
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 8957

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9450
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 9137

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

CH02
I&O_9630
We believe CH02 is the most appropriate location for growth around Chester, with particular reference to the site at Mannings Lane. CH02 is located to the east of Hoole, Vicars Cross and Boughton Health, and is contained by the A55 North Wales Expressway and A41 Ring Road to the east, south and west. Duttons Lane to the north forms the boundary of the parcel. The parcel is entirely within Flood Zone 1 and beyond existing houses that could be retained, is predominantly greenfield. The parcel can be considered in two parts, with the A51 dissecting the parcel. To the north, the parcel would form a natural extension of Hoole and Vicars Cross, strengthening the defensible boundary of the green belt whilst maintaining the separation of Guilden Sutton and Littleton. The northern parcel is well connected to Chester and land is allocated within this parcel for a future Park and Ride by the A56, which would further increase the sustainability of the area. Furthermore, within the parcel, the Mannings Lane site is the only site proposed for potential Green Belt release which could achieve a direct connection to the Millenium Greenway, a key active travel route. The early development of the northern parcel, in particular the Mannings Lane site, could also improve connectivity to the wider CH02 site. To the south, the parcel is further dissected to by the A41, with residential development along this channel connecting to Christleton to the east. The site would form an extension to Boughton Heath, extending the existing development. CH02 is also sustainably located close to the railway station (2-2.5km) and the highways network (A41 & M53), providing the most sustainable transport options. CH02 is therefore the most sustainable parcel, and would, where carefully divided into suitable sites, enable the delivery of modest urban extensions within the plan period and beyond.

Comment

Representation ID: 9140

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

CH01
I&O_9633
CH01 is proposed for a mixed-use allocation, including the redevelopment of the Dale Barracks following its scheduled closure in 2029. The site would take a substantial amount of time to come forward due to the existing development present, and relies on the Barracks closure, which has been delayed a number of times since it was first announced in 2019. Furthermore, CH01 is bordered to the north and west by the Shropshire Union Canal, with a footpath running along this boundary, creating an attractive and open walking route through the countryside, which would be adversely impacted by development along this route. Significant areas of the site along this boundary are within Flood Zones 2 & 3, significantly reducing the developable area of this parcel. The site is also dissected by the railway line, further constraining the developable area due to noise and amenity impacts. As such, CH01 is not considered wholly appropriate for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 9142

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

CH03
I&O_9635
CH03 is proposed for housing to the south the Lache, and is contained by the railway line, A55 (North Wales Expressway) and Wrexham Road. East of the site is Chester Business Park. The land to the west of Lache Lane, which runs north-south through the site, is almost entirely within Flood Zones 2 & 3, again significantly reducing the developable area. Furthermore, centrally within the site is areas approved as an Ecological Mitigation Area under 17/02444/FUL, to be maintained for a minimum of 25 years. As such, this land will not be available within the plan period and further reduces the developable area. CH03 therefore does not, on its own, propose sufficient land to address Chester’s housing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 9145

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miller Developments

Agent: NJL Consulting

CH04
I&O_9638
CH04 is proposed to the northern edge of Blacon, north-west of the City Centre. The site bound to the east by the A540 and the west by the (administrative) boundary to Wales, with a large tree belt following this boundary. To the north, is land forming the Hynet Carbon Dioxide Pipeline, beyond which is Saughull Village. As such, the parcel is contained physically to the east, south and west. The parcel is less constrained than CH01 and CH03, however there is no physical boundary to restrict the sprawl of development to the north. The parcel is also constrained by a couple of listed buildings, including Crabwall Manor. We do believe CH04 is a reasonable location for development, however significant analysis would be required to protect the parcel from urban sprawl. Furthermore, the parcel is not, in isolation, sufficient to address Chester’s housing needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 9228

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9721
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 9428

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9923
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 9580

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10075
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 9695

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10191
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 9815

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10312
CH01 is the best and most logical fit for the future growth of Chester CH03 is constrained by floodrisk and biodiversity to its eastern half and by acoustic impacts and highway impact issues CH04 is a poor strategic option and suffers from poor connectivity/accessibility onto the network

Comment

Representation ID: 10241

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Avison Young

LAA ref 1403
I&O_10738
Our response to Question SS23 and SS24 relates to the DIO’s land interest at Dale Barracks which falls within the proposed growth allocation CH01. The DIO are fully supportive of the potential removal of the site from the Green Belt and allocation as part of a wider allocation under CH01. Policy GBC1.C of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan (Part Two) currently identifies most of Dale Barracks as a development opportunity. The whole site represents a highly sustainable location that offers an opportunity for sensitive land release from the Green Belt and allocation for housing development on a PDL site. The DIO and their technical team have prepared a Development Statement for the site (enclosed with theses representations), which seeks to clearly articulate the opportunity that exists at the site for release from the Green Belt and allocation for residential development, by providing; an analysis of the site and its surroundings; setting out the case for the removal of the site from the Green Belt; analysing the sustainability of the site, including a review of key technical considerations and demonstrating that the site is suitable, available and achievable. On the basis of the information contained within the Development Statement, it is the DIO position that growth area CH01 is the most suitable growth area for Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 10340

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Christleton Parish Council

I&O_10837
We do not think any of the identified potential growth areas around Chester are suitable. They all suffer from the flaws we have identified in our answer to SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 11136

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Waverton Parish Council

I&O_11634
None of the identified growth areas around Chester or the potential sites identified in the Land Availability Assessment – Stage 1 report identified in Waverton are suitable. All have substantial flaws as outlined in our answer to Question SS 24.

Comment

Representation ID: 11479

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sealand Road Commercial Properties Limited

I&O_11977
We have no comment on the four growth areas shown on the periphery of Chester, however we strongly question why the options for growth do not identify options within the settlement area, such as Sealand Road where there is a live planning application. Information provided in that application, and summarised with these representations, show that the site is developable and deliverable, and therefore should be allocated for 150 homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 11523

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12021
There should be no development on Green Belt or high-quality agricultural land.