Comment

Representation ID: 336

Received: 22/07/2025

Respondent: Chester Archaeological Society

Map 5.5
I&O_367
Question SS 27 Development in Ellesmere Port has resulted in uncontrolled spawl, engulfing Great and Little Sutton and now threatening Capenhurst. The first priority should be redevelopment (especially of surface car parks) and densification within the town. Development in Area EP01, between the A5117 and M56, is particularly to be avoided as it intrudes on the Green Belt separating Ellesmere Port from Chester.

Comment

Representation ID: 506

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_589
Any option should be accompanied by a robust assessment of the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting to inform the best solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 692

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Hughes

I&O_778
Are there no suitable sites within the town centre itself?

Comment

Representation ID: 1033

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Gaskell

EP 1
I&O_1138
Every time I walk around Cheshire Oaks and Broughton Retail Park (to name just two successful retail areas) I notice how busy they always are. This is in stark contrast to Ellesmere Port town centre, which has sadly become an empty, boarded up ghost town, that people are avoiding in a rapidly downwards spiral. The only way to revive Ellesmere Port is to start again, with a grand new bold vision. The best way to have a successful, thriving and bustling Ellesmere Port town centre is to re-build it as an attractive Cheshire Oaks style town centre, around the edges of all the car parking areas. This new town centre will have under cover walkways in front of the shops, and allocated units for leisure facilities and restaurants e.g. McDonalds, KFC, Burger King etc, with undercover outdoor seating at the front. All empty buildings in the town centre need to be demolished (particularly including the complete eyesore of the old B&M building). The only buildings that should remain are Asda, Aldi, the new indoor market, a rejuvenated Port Arcades and the shops on Marine Drive. Everything else should be pulled down. The new development should be built in a 'U' shape starting to the left side of Asda, and go around the edges of the car parking areas and then the remainder to be built back-to-back to Marine Drive up to Civic Way. What is also needed and crucial as part of this new development is free parking. Even if free parking can only be for the first 2 or 3 hours (with option to pay for longer stays). I want to share my vision further with you to help to turn around what is currently a ghost town, and turn it into a new, exciting, vibrant destination that will pull in visitors from a very large catchment area and a twin-centre visit for people visiting Cheshire Oaks. Currently, if I want to go shopping, I avoid Ellesmere Port town centre. Instead I will go to Broughton Retail Park, Greyhound Retail Park and the Croft Retail Park (at Bromborough), Cheshire Oaks, Sainsburys, B&M and the larger out of town Home Bargains. It is these places that Ellesmere Port town centre should be aiming to compete with. You only have to look on Facebook to read posts about the complete dissatisfaction of Ellesmere Port town centre talking about the rapid decline of the town centre and the car parking charges which have killed the town centre. As an emergency measure to do right now, I would recommend that there should be free parking for the 1st hour to help stop the further decline of the town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 1037

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Astbury

SS 27
I&O_1142
There is a plot of land to the east of Strawberry Roundabout that could be suitable for small development. There is also a site over the road from that to the South that may be suitable for development. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2459

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Clarke

I&O_2588
No

Comment

Representation ID: 2723

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Birtles

I&O_2879
Cheshire Oaks can be a bottleneck but other areas of Ellesmere Port have good access to motorway and it has plenty of leisure and retail services. Road improvements would be needed within the town itself.

Comment

Representation ID: 3557

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3731
The town centre could be better developed however as Cheshire Oaks etc are nearby with public service links many facilities are available

Comment

Representation ID: 5052

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5411
Include more green belt and along transport corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 5220

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Prof Robert Smith

I&O_5584
None seem to be agriculturally they productive, but this does need to be assessed and unit size of what remains and its viability needs to be considered.

Comment

Representation ID: 7096

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Luke Henley

I&O_7568
More development in Ellesmere Port would be appropriate

Comment

Representation ID: 7870

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Acresfield Development Discretionary Trust

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8359
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8080

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M & S Lacey

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8569
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8256

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: M and P Jones

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8745
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8466

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: A-M, WR and AJA Posnett

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_8957
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8652

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9143
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8827

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9320
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 8961

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9454
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 9233

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9726
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 9435

Received: 03/09/2025

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

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9930
EP01 (the westernmost parcels) appear to be the best option and fit for strategic growth, benefitting from dual frontages onto both the A5117 and A41, acknowledging there are floodrisk constraints further to the east and the whole area will have to address utility infrastructure  EP02 is constrained by access consideration onto the A5117 without major remodelling  EP03 could offer potential but would reduce the strategic gap between Ellesmere Port and Eastham

Comment

Representation ID: 11527

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: CPRE Cheshire Branch

I&O_12025
Before developing potential ‘growth’ areas ‘around’ Ellesmere Port, areas in need of regeneration within it should be redeveloped.

Comment

Representation ID: 13308

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Atkin

I&O_13827
I am opposed to development taking place in Chester's precious greenbelt. And any other greenbelt areas such as around Ellesmere Port where access to greenbelt amenity is vital to local residents. I have attempted to find a way of responding via the council website but find this is very difficult to navigate. So I am answering here to what I have been told is Question SS11. I choose Option A - Retain the Greenbelt.  

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 14940

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Eric Wright Group

Agent: Connollys Planning & Development Limited

I&O_15499
Growth Options and Potential Growth Areas We note the three options presented at Section SS5: Option A – Retain the Green Belt: This Option cannot meet the identified scale of growth and cannot be supported. Option B – Current distribution: Most realistic Option. Option C – Sustainable transport corridors: Attractive in principle, but risks dispersed and incremental growth with limited regeneration benefit With reference to the potential growth areas for Ellesmere port, EP01 is the most appropriate and ambitious strategy to meet identified development needs. It is incredibly likely that exceptional circumstances for Green Belt release at Ellesmere Port will exist, given the step change, to support urban brownfield opportunities such as Lloyd Drive, which would be complimentary for any policy framework that may be devised for EP01 in future version of the Local Plan. We would welcome Officers’ formal consideration of our proposed site specific policy, which is enclosed with this letter for consideration. Conversely, EP04 is the least appropriate option, being less sustainable, more dispersed, and inconsistent with national policy emphasis on regeneration.

Comment

Representation ID: 15217

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt Redrow Plc

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group Ltd

I&O_15776
No detailed comments at this stage – other than to note that growth option EP01, located to the immediate south of the Dunkirk Farm Growth Area, is a mixed housing/employment area. Should additional employment development be located in the area to the south, Dunkirk Farm is very well placed to accommodate this growth and to meet the additional housing needs of the area in a sustainable manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 15281

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15840
These representations promote Peel’s land interests as follows: Protos – comprising the consented Protos Phase 1 and 2 sites to establish a more flexible policy position than currently to respond to the up-to-date strategic context and the economic / clean growth opportunities. Protos Phase 3 – comprising land directly east of Protos – this land is promoted as an extension to Protos Phases 1 & 2 with a similar policy position to create a clean growth cluster / co-location of developments with large scale flexible development plots associated with energy generation, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, and resource recovery. The former CF Fertilisers site – this site represents a unique brownfield redevelopment / regeneration opportunity and in synergy with Protos is promoted for large scale flexible development associated with energy generation, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, resource recovery, and special employment uses. Land south of the former CF Fertilisers site – this land is promoted for release from the Green Belt for general employment use to help meet the need for employment land across the borough within the Plan period. Land west of Protos – this land should be removed from the Green Belt, as it serves no Green Belt purpose. Land comprising Frodsham Wind Farm – this land is promoted as a renewable energy zone. Land at Station Road - This land is promoted for the allocation of: Commercial, Business and Service uses (Use Class E), General Industry (Use Class B2) and/or Storage & Distribution (Use Class B8) uses. Land at North Road - This is promoted for the allocation of: Energy/Electricity Production & Generation (Use Class Sui Generis), Waste Treatment (Use Class Sui Generis), General Industrial (Use Class B2 / E(g)) and/or Storage & Distribution (Use Class B8) uses. Peel is a committed delivery partner in CWACC. It is successfully delivering Protos including the delivery of key energy generation and resource recovery facilities across land within Phase 1, the delivery of ecological management areas, and the delivery of essential infrastructure comprising electricity upgrades, highway improvements and improvements to the canal berth along the Manchester Ship Canal. Peel remains committed to bringing the land at and surrounding Protos forward for delivery to achieve shared objectives with the Council and create significant benefits for the borough (and wider sub-region). However, this can only be achieved through flexible and positive Local Plan policies and the allocation of land for development

Comment

Representation ID: 15312

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15871
As is demonstrated and evidenced in Section 4, additional land will be required around Ellesmere Port to meet the needs of the borough beyond those identified to date. There is a clear indication from CWACs own evidence (ENA 2025) that there is a need for additional land to accommodate proposals for decarbonisation-related / specialist developments that are not included as part of the overall employment land supply, and that this should be focussed within and surrounding Ellesmere Port. This is reflective of its status within the borough as the industrial heartland, but that supply is clearly constrained. A range of sites should be provided, to cater for different needs. Land promoted in this representation at Sections 5 - 12 can help the borough meet its needs and objectives. The sites offer specific characteristics that are likely to appeal to a variety of uses not captured by traditional employment uses, such as large energy intensive industrial uses, and uses that will directly benefit from the site's location and those characteristics, such as being large-scale, flat, and in close proximity to potential multi-modal connections (rail, road and canal), and its proximity to existing and planned infrastructure including utilities, the HyNet pipelines, electricity connections etc. Proximity to the existing Protos development, as well as other significant industrial and employment uses in the area. Such land provides opportunities to cluster like developments together to create synergies and utilise infrastructure provision. The emerging Local Plan should proactively and positively work to grasp and accommodate the opportunities and significant benefits the allocation of these sites within the Local Plan around Ellesmere Port would bring for economic growth, job retention and creation, and addressing climate change.

Comment

Representation ID: 15351

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Peel NRE Limited

Agent: Turley

I&O_15910
This representation builds on the response to the informal consultations which have been previously undertaken, including the Local Plan Conversation (September 2021) and the Local Plan Evidence Base Consultation (March 2024). Turley, on behalf of Peel, submitted representations to both consultations to promote Peel’s land interests. In addition to the sites previously promoted, Peel has now acquired the former CF Fertilisers site which provides a unique opportunity to expand Protos onto brownfield land for the redevelopment / regeneration opportunity for sustainable energy generation/use, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, and resource recovery developments. Further details on this site can be found at Sections 5 - 12. The land at and surrounding Protos, including the former CF Fertilisers site, are of strategic importance to create a cluster / co-location of developments with large scale flexible development plots associated with clean growth including sustainable energy generation/use, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, resource recovery, and broader employment uses. These development opportunities will help Cheshire West and Chester Council (“CWACC”) to achieve their net zero carbon dioxide emission goals and meet employment needs in a sustainable way. To take advantage of this strategically important location to meet the needs of the borough, a flexible, supportive policy position is required through the allocation of land for development, including release of land from the Green Belt. These representations promote Peel’s land interests as follows: Protos – comprising the consented Protos Phase 1 and 2 sites to establish a more flexible policy position than currently to respond to the up-to-date strategic context and the economic / clean growth opportunities. Protos Phase 3 – comprising land directly east of Protos – this land is promoted as an extension to Protos Phases 1 & 2 with a similar policy position to create a clean growth cluster / co-location of developments with large scale flexible development plots associated with energy generation, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, and resource recovery. The former CF Fertilisers site – this site represents a unique brownfield redevelopment / regeneration opportunity and in synergy with Protos is promoted for large scale flexible development associated with energy generation, industrial decarbonisation, energy intensive industry, resource recovery, and special employment uses. Land south of the former CF Fertilisers site – this land is promoted for release from the Green Belt for general employment use to help meet the need for employment land across the borough within the Plan period. Land west of Protos – this land should be removed from the Green Belt, as it serves no Green Belt purpose. Land comprising Frodsham Wind Farm – this land is promoted as a renewable energy zone. Land at Station Road - This land is promoted for the allocation of: Commercial, Business and Service uses (Use Class E), General Industry (Use Class B2) and/or Storage & Distribution (Use Class B8) uses. Land at North Road - This is promoted for the allocation of: Energy/Electricity Production & Generation (Use Class Sui Generis), Waste Treatment (Use Class Sui Generis), General Industrial (Use Class B2 / E(g)) and/or Storage & Distribution (Use Class B8) uses. Peel is a committed delivery partner in CWACC. It is successfully delivering Protos including the delivery of key energy generation and resource recovery facilities across land within Phase 1, the delivery of ecological management areas, and the delivery of essential infrastructure comprising electricity upgrades, highway improvements and improvements to the canal berth along the Manchester Ship Canal. Peel remains committed to bringing the land at and surrounding Protos forward for delivery to achieve shared objectives with the Council and create significant benefits for the borough (and wider sub-region). However, this can only be achieved through flexible and positive Local Plan policies and the allocation of land for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 15471

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16030
Any policy approach should maintain the separation between built up areas within Wirral and Ellesmere Port and retain their distinctiveness.

Comment

Representation ID: 15937

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lexwood Developments

Agent: HK Planning

I&O_16496
EP01 would appear to be largest potential allocation identified in the proposed Local Plan Issues and Options document. Clearly it is a release from Green Belt, and should therefore only be considered acceptable following a robust assessment of the Green Belt. If it is felt not suitable for release then obviously the housing and employment elements from that allocation would need to be found elsewhere in the Borough. Earmarking this emerging allocation for development without this assessment is considered premature, and potentially would result in more suitable sites elsewhere in the Borough not being considered (both Green Belt land, and none Green Belt designated land). Also, this Site is likely to require large scale highway and service infrastructure to deliver it, as such a comprehensive delivery plan needs to be considered in detail and be used as a key driver for the release of this Site. This needs to be done early in the Local Plan process to ensure it does not hold up in delivery of much needed homes and employment floorspace in the Borough. If it is found that this Site can only be delivered later in the plan period then either the land should not be allocated, or significant flexibility is required in policy terms for the housing and employment elements to be delivered elsewhere, should it not come forward. Ultimately, once again this is why the allocation of a variety of sites (including mall to medium sites) in the Local Plan is key to delivery of the Borough’s housing needs in particular, hence the NPPF’s support for such sites being allocated and SME developers being supported.