Comment

Representation ID: 43

Received: 07/07/2025

Respondent: Chris Jackson

I&O_46
SS 41  1 and 2 look the best options here 

Comment

Representation ID: 183

Received: 15/07/2025

Respondent: Richard Cannon

I&O_206
None of the three options meet the 'very special circumstances' outlined in the NPPF. However, if one site is to be approved, FRO03 is preferred due to access and congestion considerations. The proposed sites would substantially increase the town's population, exacerbating congestion and associated pollution, which would pose a considerable problem for residents. Such further development risks overwhelming Frodsham’s limited access routes and already stretched community resources, to the detriment of both existing and future residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 213

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Paul Hayes

SS41
I&O_242
None of the sites are suitable. Most of the land is Greenbelt plus the existing infrastructure and facilities that the town could accommodate are already stretched well beyond their capacity.  

Comment

Representation ID: 252

Received: 17/07/2025

Respondent: Emma Malpeli

MAP 5.10
I&O_282
None of those listed are suitable, this is greenbelt land with no exceptional reason to release this land for building. FR001 and FR002 border Hob Hey Wood, an ancient woodland, there will be a significant detrimental impact on wildlife and the ecosystem with building works on the border of this woodland. There are many bats in this area, visible most evenings in the spring/summer - construction will have a negative impact on these creatures. In addition Bradley Fields through the Townfield Lane end of this site is a Medieval Field system of archaelogical interest. There is a community allotment swept up into this area on the map, this allotment is widely used with community events not just for allotment owners but for the community as a whole. The road system from this site down Langdale way is not suitable for a large housing estate, there is a Primary School on Langdale Way that would be negatively affected by a large amount of construction traffic and additional cars from the houses, there is no pelican crossing for the children. Traffic queueing from Langdale Way into Fluin Lane is already common place and then additional queuing from Fluin Lane to the A56, additional traffic will exascerbate this issue. When there is an issue on M56 the entire motorway diverts through Frodsham, adding this number of houses with access via a side road onto A56 that already has traffic flow issues will make the lives of existing residents even more difficult. Site FR003 would have exits onto a narrow, single carriageway part of the A56, adding to traffic flow, queues in and out of Frodsham and adding to the number of cars when there are issues on the motorway. The pavements down this part of the A56 for pedestrians are very narrow.

Comment

Representation ID: 279

Received: 20/07/2025

Respondent: Derek Porter

I&O_309
Question SS41: FRO03 is the most suitable of the three options as it is close to the A56 and has the least impact on green belt land.   The least suitable option is FRO01 as this would destroy highly valued green belt land adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. 

Comment

Representation ID: 285

Received: 20/07/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mercer

FRO03
I&O_315
I believe FR03 is the zone that is better connected to the existing infrastructure and road networks than the other zones identified,  and would have least impact on the existing residents within the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 410

Received: 26/07/2025

Respondent: Ms Linda Smith

I&O_485
Whilst the use of infill sites and small-scale land release in the 3 areas may be appropriate to meet targets, all have significant constraints as identified in my answer to Question SS42.  Of the 3 areas, Frodsham 03 is the most suitable for limited housing development.  

Comment

Representation ID: 439

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Kieran Brady

FRO03
I&O_521
FRO03 is the only suggestion that may be suitable. FRO01 and FRO02 definitely are not suitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 442

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Hannah Keeffe

I&O_525
1. This Development Must Not Go Ahead This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it.

Comment

Representation ID: 451

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Matt Bill

I&O_534
What happened to retain the green belt? This is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it.  

Comment

Representation ID: 456

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Stephen Ellis

FR001 and FR002
I&O_539
I strongly object to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it.

Comment

Representation ID: 515

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Historic England

I&O_598
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: 598

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Andrew Garland

I&O_681
All of the 3 areas have constraints (see my response to Question SS42). However, of the 3 areas Frodsham 03 is the most suitable for limited housing development

Comment

Representation ID: 606

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Laura Herriott

I&O_689
FR03

Comment

Representation ID: 645

Received: 30/07/2025

Respondent: Marc Vannerem

I&O_728
If an area must be selected, I believe that FR003 would be the most suitable. It is closest to the centre of Frodsham, to local facilities, to schools, medical centres, transport routes. 

Comment

Representation ID: 652

Received: 31/07/2025

Respondent: Mark O'Sullivan

Question SS41
I&O_735
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 655

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Julie OSullivan

SS41
I&O_738
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 696

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Balchin

I&O_783
None of them. Retain the greenbelt This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it

Comment

Representation ID: 796

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Carberry

I&O_900
1. This Development Must Not Go Ahead   This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it.   2. Traffic is Already Broken   The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening.   Add hundreds of extra vehicles from FR001 and FR002 and the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk.   Source: Hansard (UK Parliament), 2015 –  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-11-17/debates/15111754000002/M56(Junctions12To14)   3. Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland   Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat.   The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat.   The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature.   Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind.   Source: ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/ ).   4. Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed   Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive.   Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete.   Source: Planning Inspectorate –  https://nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069-6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf   5. Significant Disturbance to The Woodland   Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.   Source:  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming-nature-reserves-study   6. Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical   Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks.   Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers.   From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place.   House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again!   Source: Cheshire West SFRA –  https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf   Source: Financial Times –  https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e   7. GP Practices and Schools Are Full   There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes mean more pressure, more waiting, more stretched services.   No part of this development includes concrete plans or funding for new public services. That means the burden falls on existing ones, which are already struggling.   Source: Cheshire West Monitoring Reports –  https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/residents/planning-and-building-control/local-plan/authority-monitoring-report   8. Air Quality and Light Pollution Will Get Worse   Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust, and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected.   Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles.   Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution.   Source: Cheshire West AQMA Action Plan –  https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/pests-pollution-food-safety/pollution-and-air-quality/air-quality-review-and-assessment/action-plans/action-plan-frodsham-0118.pdf   Source: Bat Conservation Trust Guidance NoteGN08/23Bats and Artificial Lighting At Night.   Source: Impact of light pollution on moth morphology–A 137-year study in Germany  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.05.004 ).       9. Antisocial Behaviour and Isolation Will Rise   New estates without integrated planning lead to social fragmentation. These areas become disconnected, under-policed, and under-supported. This isn’t speculation. It’s known from other developments nationally.   The National Planning Policy Framework requires that growth supports community cohesion. This proposal does not. It isolates new homes on the edge of town and dumps responsibility for cohesion onto already stretched services.   Source: NPPF (2023) –  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2   10. House Prices Will Drop   People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. Strip those away, and the value drops. This development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth.   Homeowners who’ve invested in the area will be hit with lower resale values and a loss of the rural edge they were sold on. Developers walk away with profit. Residents are left picking up the cost.   11. Greenbelt Is Not A Technicality   The Greenbelt is there for a reason. Once you breach it, you set precedent for more erosion. This is not just about FRO01 or FRO02. It’s about what follows next if this goes ahead.   National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. This land should remain untouched.   Source: GOV.UK Greenbelt Guidance –   ttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land   12. Final Statement – Reject This Now   This proposal is bad planning. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities.   This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable.   FRO01 and FRO02 must be removed from development plans entirely. This objection demands that the proposal be rejected in full. Nothing else will do.  

Comment

Representation ID: 990

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Janine Campbell

I&O_1094
I do not believe any of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham are ideal for development. Each of the proposed sites presents challenges in terms of infrastructure, landscape impact, and pressure on local services — and none offer a clearly sustainable solution. However, if the Council is determined to bring one site forward, FR003 may have fewer negative environmental consequences than FR001 and FR002 . While FR003 is also Green Belt land , from the available maps it appears to be less ecologically sensitive than FR001 and FR002, as it is not directly adjacent to Hob Hey Wood or other significant woodland habitats. In contrast: FR001 and FR002 border Hob Hey Wood , which is a vital local biodiversity site, rich in wildlife and home to protected species. Development here would cause direct disturbance and fragmentation of important habitat corridors. These areas also act as natural flood management zones , helping to soak up surface water and reduce flood peaks — something that is increasingly critical as climate change accelerates. Furthermore, development at FR001 or FR002 would: Remove key green infrastructure used by local residents for walking, nature, and recreation. Increase the risk of flooding to nearby properties — some of which have already experienced historical sewer floods. Add to road congestion in residential areas, particularly during motorway incidents. While FR003 is not without impact , it does appear to be slightly less sensitive from a wildlife and flood risk perspective , which is why — if a choice must be made — it would be the least damaging option . However, I urge the Council to reconsider whether any Green Belt release in Frodsham is justified at all , especially when brownfield and previously allocated sites (e.g. FRO/0010, FRO/0038) remain available. The focus should be on: Prioritising previously developed land. Protecting key habitats and green corridors. Supporting the objectives of the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan . In summary, while none of the sites are truly suitable , FR003 may be less harmful than FR001 and FR002 — but this does not mean it is the right solution.

Comment

Representation ID: 1075

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Horton

SS41 Frodsham
I&O_1180
None of the identified potential growth areas identified here are suitable. Frodsham has numerous brownfield sites that would be far more appropriate for the development of future homes. This is a firm and direct objection to the identified sites. The proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risks, overloads already congested roads, strains local services, destroys established wildlife routes and rips up national policy. If implemented, it will irretrievably damage the town and everyone in it, present and in the future.

Comment

Representation ID: 1433

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Rogers

FRO02 & FRO03
I&O_1538
None, due to the traffic queues that always form on a Friday afternoon and Saturday lunchtimes, even when the motorway is unimpeded.. However, the land north of the A56 near to the marshes/ M56 motorway would be more suitable, especially if a new junction 13 was built on the M56 mortorway (it was originally planned).  

None of these

Comment

Representation ID: 1457

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Mike Carberry

5.1
I&O_1562
In reference to the local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18) Consultation 4 July to 29 August 2025 https://cmttpublic.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/s91474/Appendix FR001 & FR002 Section 5.1 Key questions: SS41, SS42, SS43 I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express a strong and unwavering objection to the proposed development on Greenbelt land parcels FR001 and FR002, which border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s last remaining rural buffer. This is not a polite suggestion but a firm and direct opposition to this development. Firstly, the traffic situation in Frodsham is already dire. The A56 and other main roads are regularly gridlocked, especially when the M56 is closed or partially shut. The Weaver Viaduct sees over 112,000 vehicles daily, and this number spikes during roadworks, collisions, or closures. Adding hundreds of extra vehicles from this development will only exacerbate the problem, slowing emergency response times and putting lives at risk. Secondly, Hob Hey Wood is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, home to thousands of species, many of which are rare or scarce. The woodland is a haven for wildlife and local residents who benefit from the mental and physical health improvements that come from spending time in nature. Building on FR001 and FR002 would destroy wildlife corridors and disrupt this delicate ecosystem. Moreover, surface water flooding is a significant threat to homes in England, and Frodsham is no exception. Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding green land act as a natural sponge, slowing rain and reducing flood peaks. Building on this land means water will run off faster, overloading drains and causing floods. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. Frodsham’s infrastructure is already stretched to its limits. GP practices and schools are at capacity, and this development includes no plans or funding for new public services. The burden will fall on existing services, which are already struggling. Air quality and light pollution are also major concerns. Frodsham is inside an Air Quality Management Area, and cars are the top local pollutant. Additional vehicles from this development will worsen air quality and increase noise. Lighting from new housing, cars, and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood, ruining habitats for nocturnal species and affecting human sleep cycles. Furthermore, new estates without integrated planning lead to social fragmentation, antisocial behavior, and isolation. The National Planning Policy Framework requires that growth supports community cohesion, but this proposal isolates new homes on the edge of town, dumping the responsibility for cohesion onto already stretched services. House prices will also suffer. People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. This development removes those features, lowering property values and leaving residents to pick up the cost while developers walk away with profit. The Greenbelt is not a technicality. It exists for a reason, and breaching it sets a precedent for further erosion. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives, and this land should remain untouched. In conclusion, this proposal is an example of poor planning that adds pressure to failing infrastructure, increases flood risk, destroys wildlife corridors, worsens air quality, lowers property values, and puts lives at risk. It benefits developers at the expense of the community. I strongly urge that this proposal be rejected in full. Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter.

Comment

Representation ID: 1469

Received: 09/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rudd

I&O_1574
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are  completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so

Comment

Representation ID: 1522

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Clough

I&O_1630
A - retain greenbelt. Frodsham is already creaking at the seams. I'd want to see how the roads and infrastructure would be improved to accommodate such an influx of additional inhabitants. 

Comment

Representation ID: 1571

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: James Hawkes

I&O_1679
FR001 and FR002 are not suitable areas for futher development due to already challenging commuting with this level of development likely to make entering and exiting the area take considerably longer. Hob Hey Wood also contains spectacular walks and wildlife which would be put at risk by this level of development.  FR003 is the most suitable area for development albeit even here traffic issues are likely to be caused by any development albeit the impact is lesser than FR001 and FR002.  

Comment

Representation ID: 1598

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Rodney Foster

FRO01 & FRO02
I&O_1708
Please note that I am strongly objecting to : Policies SS41, SS42,SS43 I strongly object to the FRO01 & FRO02 proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1603

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Quirk

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1713
I am writing to formally object to the proposed allocation of Green Belt land at sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local Plan 2025. This objection relates specifically to questions SS41, SS42, SS43, SS45, and SS47 of the consultation and is based on legal, policy, environmental, and infrastructure grounds, as outlined below. 1. Green Belt Protection Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt sites. According to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) , Green Belt development is deemed inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such circumstances have been adequately demonstrated in the draft plan. The core purpose of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl, protect the countryside, and maintain openness — all of which this proposal undermines. 2. Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances Cheshire West and Chester Council has not provided robust evidence that alternative options — such as brownfield redevelopment or less sensitive land — were thoroughly explored before proposing release of Green Belt land. The NPPF is clear: Green Belt release must be a last resort , and exceptional circumstances must be fully evidenced and justified . The current documentation fails to meet this standard. 3. Infrastructure Strain (SS47) Frodsham’s infrastructure is already under significant strain: The A56 is heavily congested, and even minor disruption to the M56 creates gridlock. Local GP surgeries and primary/secondary schools are operating near or at full capacity. No concrete infrastructure upgrades or funding commitments are presented in parallel with this proposed housing expansion. To proceed with this level of development without infrastructure guarantees would be unsustainable and damaging to the quality of life for current and future residents. 4. Environmental Sensitivity Sites FRO01 and FRO02 are adjacent to Hob Hey Wood , an ancient woodland and a designated Site of Biological Importance . These sites serve as crucial wildlife corridors and ecological buffer zones. Development here would fragment habitats, threaten biodiversity, and irreparably damage the ecological integrity of the area. The draft plan does not include adequate Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) or biodiversity net gain measures, contrary to NPPF guidelines. 5. Flood Risk These proposed sites lie within natural water absorption zones for Frodsham. The surrounding area, including Langdale Way, has a record of surface flooding and sewage issues . Replacing permeable green space with hardstanding will increase surface runoff and exacerbate downstream flood risk — a clear conflict with the council’s own flood management strategy. 6. Community Impact and Wellbeing The proposed loss of green space poses a serious risk to public health and community cohesion. Access to natural green areas like FRO01 and FRO02 supports physical and mental wellbeing , community identity, and healthy lifestyles — all objectives set out in the NPPF under its aim to foster healthy, inclusive communities . The plan makes no commitment to preserving equivalent accessible green space if development proceeds. 7. Precedent and Policy Breach Allowing development on these sites would set a damaging precedent for future erosion of Green Belt protections across the borough. Furthermore, the proposal contradicts several elements of national planning policy and undermines the principles of sustainable development and localism that underpin both the NPPF and the council’s existing development framework. 8. Final Position For all the reasons stated above, I strongly object to the inclusion of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local Plan 2025. I respectfully urge the council to: Remove both sites from the Local Plan Review ; Uphold its statutory duty to protect Green Belt land unless no reasonable alternatives exist — which has not been demonstrated in this case; Reassess the plan’s compliance with national policy , especially regarding Green Belt use, environmental protection, infrastructure capacity, and community wellbeing. Thank you for considering this objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 1609

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Margaret Crimes

FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03
I&O_1719
Comment:- FRO03 is a possible development site but the potential traffic hazard caused by traffic volume would have to be a consideration in calculating the number of houses allowed there.

Comment

Representation ID: 1669

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Stockbridge

I&O_1779
The area between Townfield Lane / Fairways and Hob Hey Wood is totally unsuitable for building.  It is actively farmed green belt land and borders on an environmentally sensitive ancient woodland, which would inevitably suffer as a result of the encroachment of human habitation.