Comment

Representation ID: 12135

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David G and Eileen M Sparke

FRO03, HEL01
I&O_12649
Having considered the proposals if we have to make a choice then we feel that the only possible option would be to implement FRO03. However again we both feel that were this area fully built up then there would be a significant impact on local services and would exceed the capacity of the local road network as the only route available would be onto the existing A56 and then through Frodsham or Helsby onto the M56. We also note that if you consider the proposed HEL01 development then there  would in reality be no separation between Helsby and Frodsham, thus totally altering the nature of the two towns.

Comment

Representation ID: 12177

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jayne Wilson

I&O_12691
I find the phrasing of this question to be incorrect as it forces a choice of favourite without real consideration of details and impacts (covered in  SS42  /  SS43 ).  I appreciate it’s early consultation, but the best solution for Frodsham is  “none of the above”,  and to stick to the Neighbourhood Plan which has a more sustainable level of growth without impacting green belt or fundamentally impacting the nature of the town, exponential growth in traffic and congestion, or exacerbating existing issues in accessing healthcare, school places, parking, and so on. FR01  and  FR02  are especially concerning in terms of: Impact on Hob Hey Wood & related areas including damage to precious ancient woodland Impact on wildlife & wildlife corridors Potential flood risk as this area covers the flow from the existing settlement down to the river Loss of green space and green belt land Materiality of impact of scale of development on Frodsham vs actual need for housing in the borough. Moving the boundaries of Frodsham settlement to those of Runcorn, effectively creating urban sprawl

Comment

Representation ID: 12182

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jasmine Sproston

I&O_12696
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: 12186

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Tyghe

I&O_12700
Policy objections SS41, SS42,SS43  I feel very strongly about the traffic increase especially when the M56 is congested, causing gridlock. Also losing more green space that should be preserved.

Comment

Representation ID: 12196

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard McLaren

I&O_12710
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: 12201

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Samantha Robinson

I&O_12715
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: 12207

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Erica Davies

SS 41
I&O_12721
I object strongly to this proposal which would have devastating effects on the local area. The potential damage to the ancient woodland would be extreme, destroying the habitat of much wildlife and contributing to environmental breakdown. The loss of this area to the community would be unimaginable. Frodsham is a small market town - it does not have to capacity to support the increased population this would bring in the form of gridlock on already busy roads and more pressure on already over subscribed GPs, dentists and schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 12235

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Van Bishop

I&O_12749
Objections to Frodsham developments:- SS41,SS42 and SS43 urgent! I am objecting to the appalling planning proposals to build hundreds of homes on protected Green Belt Land on and around the ancient woodland Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham Cheshire and the farmland around Dig Lane. INCREASED FLOOD RISK Frodsham is already prone to flooding and there will be an increased flood risk with so many new homes. Many of the fields are already flooded on a semi permanent basis - historically the sea used to come up to the houses. Frodsham is well known for its marshes. GRIDLOCK The Spacial Strategy for building near public transport does not work in Frodsham for so many new residents. Trains are infrequent and unreliable to a limited number of destinations. Cycling is difficult and dangerous for most people as the area is exceptionally hilly with narrow winding roads. People rely mainly on cars. PROXIMITY TOTHE M56 But the key transport issue is that the town is already frequently gridlocked as cars come off the M56 junction as a detour if there are delays which happen a few times a week. The road is a main route to North Wales and both Liverpool and Manchester airports. WEEKENDS ARE ESPECIALLY BAD. * This is a nightmare as people can’t get in or out and it is a regular occurrence as there is only one main road off the motorway WHICH IS THE MAIN ROAD WHICH TRAFFIC HAS TO USE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEN FOR NEW RESIDENTS OF BOTH PROPOSED SITES. Each home will probably have multiple cars.  The plans will cause gridlock and furthermore emergency vehicles won’t able to access victims of accidents. The extra traffic for construction will also have only a couple of roads to access the building sites which are through residential areas and will be dangerous for families as well as noisy and will cause traffic chaos. THIS IS A SPECIFIC PROBLEM FOR FRODSHAM STRAIN ON VITAL AMENITIES We do not have vital amenities for hundreds of new residents. The small town - which we call a village - only has one doctors’ surgery and it is already nearly impossible to get an appointment. We have no NHS dentists at all for new people and no secondary schools at all. Helsby High School will not be able to take students from Frodsham as they also have a major new housing development. There are therefore no local secondary school for an influx of children and also a limited number of primary school spaces. WILDLIFE PROTECTION Ancient woodland cover is now only 2.4% in Britain - a fraction of what it once was.  Hob Hey is an ancient wood and site of biodiverse interest which should be protected and not destroyed by new development.  It has a blanket Tree Preservation Order on much of the wooded area and it is a haven to protected species of bats including the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. It is also home to barn and tawny owls as well as sparrow hawks, buzzards and kestrels and birds such as the great spotted woodpecker. It is an asset for the community to enjoy and it is used regularly for activities eg. for children and dog walking. Furthermore the Dig Lane fields are a wildlife corridor to the marshes and the famous bird conservation area. WORSE AIR QUALITY AND LIGHT POLLUTION    More building work and housing developments will mean much worse air quality and light pollution in the area. Frodsham is already situated next to the motorway, airport and chemical factories which leave its residents open to much worse health issues than other towns due to poor air quality.  How can this be justified?  FALLING HOUSE PRICES AND LOSS OF COMMUNITY AND GREEN SPACE Frodsham is currently a desirable small countryside town. It has green space which is well used by the community but these large proposed developments on our green belt will adversely impact house prices as well as destroy wildlife communities and rare species. Families need to live in healthy towns with access to good schools, surgeries and other amenities for everyone which we will not have. The town only has one main road into Frodsham from the motorway and out to Helsby then just two main roads out towards Kingsley. One of these roads into Frodsham is via a bridge which raises and  stops traffic if a boat sails along the canal. Therefore any such proposals will mean total gridlock and harmful pollution through residential areas. In conclusion, I believe it would be better to build on brownfield sites rather than these greenfield options. They would be detrimental in the extreme to local residents and wildlife and cause traffic chaos.  Whilst it would be a wonderful world if most residents were able to rely on public transport to get around, the reality means this is not a reality. We live in the countryside and rely mostly on cars rather than bicycles and trains which are both unreliable and unrealistic.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12241

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jeffrey Tyghe

I&O_12755
Please include this as an objection to policies SS41,SS42,SS43. I strongly object to houses being built on Hob Hey Wood. We should protect our green belt. I also oppose the amount of extra traffic this will incur passing our house.

Comment

Representation ID: 12301

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Smith

I&O_12815
I am objecting to the policy's SS41, SS42, SS43, it a total disgrace that you want to rip up ancient woodlands. Traffic in Frodsham is at a standstill when the M56 is blocked. The infrastructure for a small town does not work.

Comment

Representation ID: 12307

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Woodcock

I&O_12821
I have recently been informed of your potential planning policies - specifically SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a local resident I am writing to inform you that I object to these policies. My objection is based upon, but no limited to the following points:- Increased Flood Risk More Gridlock on Frodsham Roads - The roads are already heavily congested as it is and in a really poor state. Further traffic would be even more detrimental to the roads. Strain on GPs, Dentists, and Schools - It is extremely hard work getting a doctors appointment as it stands. Schools are relatively full too. Destruction of Wildlife Corridors Damage to Ancient Woodland Worse Air Quality & Light Pollution Falling House Prices Loss of Community and Green Space I have been advised to email yourselves regarding this objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 12337

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Amy Noble-Smith

I&O_12851
I am writing to formally object to the proposed policies  SS41, SS42 and SS43 , which relate to future housing development around  Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham . Hob Hey Wood is a unique and much-valued ancient woodland, serving not only as an important ecological site but also as a vital community green space. The proposed development poses a significant threat to the integrity and character of this area for the following reasons: Environmental Impact Hob Hey Wood is recognised for its biodiversity, supporting a wide range of plant and wildlife species. Any development adjacent to or encroaching upon the woodland risks damaging delicate habitats and disrupting ecological balance. Increased housing would bring additional light, noise, and pollution pressures, threatening the long-term sustainability of the woodland environment. Community and Wellbeing The wood is widely used by residents for recreation, walking, exercise, and wellbeing. Development nearby would fundamentally change the character of the area, reducing public enjoyment and the sense of tranquillity. Green spaces like Hob Hey Wood are increasingly essential for mental health, physical activity, and social cohesion, especially in a growing community like Frodsham. Infrastructure and Sustainability Concerns The local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and healthcare provision, is already under pressure. Additional housing developments under SS41, SS42 and SS43 would exacerbate these challenges without offering sustainable solutions. Development of this scale risks undermining the Council’s own climate and sustainability objectives, contradicting commitments to protect biodiversity and promote a green future. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Council to reconsider and withdraw  policies SS41, SS42 and SS43 . Preserving Hob Hey Wood is not only about protecting the environment, but also about safeguarding an irreplaceable community asset for current and future generations. Thank you for considering my objection. I trust that the Council will give due weight to the environmental and social value of Hob Hey Wood and take steps to ensure its protection from development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12346

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Holt

I&O_12862
I am answering to object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43 in the consultation document. My choice is to retain the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12385

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Caldwell

I&O_12901
FR001 and FR002 are not suitable given the reasons detailed below FR003 may be suitable given its railway and main road boundaries and distance from major dwelling area and lack of land of significant interest. But some of the issues detailed below apply.

Comment

Representation ID: 12395

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Siobhan Fennell

SS 41
I&O_12912
I am emailing with regard to the consultation to build on Hob Hey Wood and other greenbelt in Frodsham. I am objecting specifically to policies: SS41, SS42 and SS43  

Comment

Representation ID: 12486

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Crook

I&O_13003
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: 12537

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Ashbrook

FRO 01, FRO 02, FRO 03
I&O_13054
FFO01 is unsuitable, it increases the flood risk. Worsens air quality Destroys wildlife corridors  Lowers property values FFO02 is unsuitable, it increases the flood risk. Worsens air quality Destroys wildlife corridors  Lowers property values FFO03 is the least worst option There is land to the south of Lady Hayes (other side of the B5152) which would also be suitable as long as the iTravel bus is kept on to give people access by public transport to the town and the station  

Comment

Representation ID: 12551

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Farrell

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_13068
No. These sites should not be allocated. Development here would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Council’s own commitments on climate change, transport, biodiversity and flood management. The planned development site is across an ancient woodland (hob hey wood) which is used by local people to walk in and maintained really well by volunteers. By building on or nearby to this you will destroy the ecosystem, which has taken hundreds of years to develop and have a detrimental impact on health. The vegetation in this area helps with bringing down levels of pollution caused by the increasingly busy M56 and A56. Whilst I understand the need for housing there is a large development in progress in helsby which has not yet been finished or sold. The houses there are not affordable for people on low or even middle incomes. It would be more sustainable to develop brownfield land locally, as long as there was improvements made to infrastructure, not just promises of community levies that are not followed through. There are several examples nationally where developers have promised this and it has not been delivered.

Comment

Representation ID: 12555

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Holt

SS 41
I&O_13072
I wish to object to policies SS41, SS42 & SS43 in the consultation document. My choice is to retain the green belt land. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12564

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Baines

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_13081
I write to formally object to the proposed development of green belt land in Frodsham under policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. My objections are on the grounds of: Increased flood risk. Increased traffic congestion on the roads within and surrounding Frodsham - in particular on the M56 which is already heavily gridlocked during rush hour and most weekends throughout the summer months.  Destruction of wildlife and wildlife habitats.  Damage to ancient woodland. Deteriorating air quality and light pollution, which in turn harms local wildlife.  Detrimental impact upon local house prices.  Loss of community and green space.  Inadequate infrastructure to support additional residents, especially at local GP surgeries (where it is already almost impossible to make an appointment within a reasonable amount of time), local hospitals and schools.  Green belt should not be used for development such as this and should be avoided unless there are alternatives and I believe that there are alternative locations which would cause less harm and damage.  It is my belief that the proposals at FR001 and FR002 are the most damaging and should be removed from the overall proposals. 

Comment

Representation ID: 12573

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Hayley Percival

I&O_13090
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: 12601

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Cleland

I&O_13118
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 12605

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Elle Fraser

I&O_13122
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of hundreds of houses on Green Belt land adjacent to Hob Hey Wood, as outlined under policies SS41, SS42, and SS43. This proposal poses a serious threat to Frodsham’s countryside, biodiversity, community well-being, and overall sustainability. I wish to raise the following key objections: 1. Environmental and Ecological Impact • Loss of Ancient Woodland: Hob Hey Wood is a valuable ecological and historical asset. Any development bordering it risks irreparable damage to its biodiversity and heritage. • Wildlife Corridors: The proposed development would fragment established wildlife habitats, cutting off essential corridors that support birds, mammals, amphibians, and pollinators. • Air Quality and Light Pollution: Large-scale housing projects inevitably increase traffic and artificial lighting, disrupting local ecosystems and diminishing air quality. 2. Flood Risk and Climate Resilience • Building on Green Belt land reduces natural drainage, heightening flood risks for existing communities. Given the increasing frequency of extreme weather events linked to climate change, protecting natural floodplains should be a top priority. 3. Infrastructure and Community Strain • Healthcare and Education: Local GPs, dentists, and schools are already under strain. An influx of new residents would push these essential services beyond capacity. • Roads and Traffic: Frodsham already experiences congestion, particularly at peak times. Additional traffic from a large housing estate would create gridlock and worsen air pollution, impacting residents’ quality of life. 4. Socio-Economic Consequences • Falling House Prices: Overdevelopment in a sensitive area can lower surrounding property values by eroding the natural and rural character that makes the area desirable. • Loss of Community Character: Green Belt land provides an essential buffer between urban spread and rural countryside. Its destruction would diminish community identity, reduce green space for recreation, and permanently change the character of Frodsham. 5. Planning Principles The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) places great weight on the protection of Green Belt land. Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated here to justify removing Hob Hey Wood and its surroundings from this protection. Development should focus on brownfield sites and sustainable regeneration opportunities, not the destruction of irreplaceable countryside. In conclusion, I strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reject this proposal and safeguard Hob Hey Wood for current residents, future generations, and the rich wildlife it supports. Please register this email as my formal objection to policies SS41, SS42, and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 12610

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Cleland

I&O_13127
I am objecting to policies, SS41 SS42 SS43 Increased flood risk, Gridlock on roads, Strain on local services, Destruction of wildlife habitat, Detrimental to air quality and light pollution, Damage to ancient woodland, Loss of community green spaces.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12625

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Varley

I&O_13142
None of them should be developed, in line with Option A of retaining the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12633

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Geraldine Fraser

I&O_13150
I’m writing to formally register my strong objection to the proposed plans to build a large number of homes on the ancient woodlands at Hob Hey Wood and the land in and around the allotments at the top of Langdale Way in Frodsham. While I fully understand the need for new housing, Frodsham simply doesn’t have the infrastructure, facilities, or capacity to support a development of this size. 1.  Traffic and Road Network Concerns This part of Frodsham is served by just one main road and a very narrow secondary road — both of which are already under strain. The traffic caused during construction alone would be problematic, let alone the long-term impact of hundreds of additional vehicles once these homes are occupied. Most households own at least two cars, and often more as children grow up. Frodsham already suffers from daily traffic bottlenecks, which get significantly worse whenever there’s an issue on the M56. When problems occur on the motorway (which is frequent — especially between junctions 10 and 14), the resulting congestion brings Frodsham to a standstill. Having lived in Frodsham for 34 years, I’ve seen this go from being a monthly inconvenience to happening three or four times a week. The swing bridge and Sutton Weaver junction — critical westbound routes into Frodsham — are already operating beyond capacity. Adding potentially 1,300+ more vehicles daily would only worsen an already chaotic situation. 2.  Pressure on Local Schools All local primary schools are single-form entry and already full. The closest school to the proposed development, The Manor, would be unable to cope with the additional pupils or the extra traffic during drop-off and pick-up times. Secondary education options are also stretched. Since the closure of Frodsham High School, Helsby High is the only secondary school in the area — and it’s already operating at capacity as it serves Frodsham, Helsby, and surrounding villages. 3.  Strain on Healthcare Services Our local GP surgeries and healthcare staff are already overwhelmed. The health centre is under constant pressure, and getting a routine appointment is often difficult. Introducing hundreds more families would only add to this strain, without any clear plan for expanding medical provision. 4.  Emergency Services Limitations Frodsham's fire station is now only part-time, and our police presence has been reduced to a community base rather than a full station. These services are already struggling to meet current demands — they cannot handle a significant increase in population. 5.  Flood Risk and Failing Water Infrastructure Frodsham's existing waste and fresh water systems are already stretched thin. Sewer capacity is an ongoing concern, and during the wetter months, surface water runoff frequently causes flooding and damage to roads. United Utilities are regularly called out to deal with leaks and burst pipes — a clear sign that the infrastructure is aging and overburdened. Adding a large-scale housing development to this fragile system is asking for trouble. Where will the excess water from construction and paved surfaces go? The area's natural sandstone geology also raises serious concerns about potential environmental damage from such large-scale disruption. 6.  Loss of Green Spaces and Irreplaceable Woodland Frodsham is valued for its natural surroundings — not just by residents, but also by visitors and the local farming community. Our green spaces play a vital role in our health, wellbeing, and biodiversity. Destroying ancient woodland and open land would directly impact local wildlife, disrupt natural habitats and corridors, and worsen air and light pollution. These woodlands play a critical role in absorbing emissions and supporting local ecosystems. If we remove them, we not only lose their beauty but also the protection they offer us. With the loss of space to wind and solar farms already underway, we cannot afford to sacrifice more of our natural landscape. Frodsham is a market town that has always maintained a village feel. People choose to live here for its greenery and peaceful surroundings. If they wanted city living, they would move to a city. This proposal threatens the very identity of our town. 7.  Financial and Practical Viability Even nearby developments have failed. In Helsby, a brownfield redevelopment site has already been through two failed attempts before any real progress was made — and that was on a site far more suitable for housing than the one being proposed here. Frodsham doesn't have any equivalent brownfield sites, nor does it have the capacity — geographic or geological — to sustain a development of this scale. Forcing such a development into an unsuitable location isn’t just short-sighted — it’s potentially disastrous. In summary , this proposal is unsustainable for Frodsham on almost every level — infrastructure, schooling, healthcare, emergency services, environmental stability, and community wellbeing. I strongly urge you to reconsider this plan and instead focus on more appropriate sites that are better equipped to support new housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 12638

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Philip Nicol

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_13155
I wish to object to the planning applications above on several different grounds.  The increased volume of traffic is going to further increase the volume of traffic on Frodsham's already congested roads. The resulting increase in delays and air pollution will have serious negative impacts on Frodsham residents.  The population increase in Frodsham will place more strain on the schools, doctors and dentists. It's already very difficult to get a doctor's appointment and NHS dentistry in Frodsham is already at capacity.   The ancient woodland at Hob Hey will come under serious threat - the woodland isn't designed to cope with the large increase in population living right next door to it that these policies would bring and will cause habitat degradation with the resulting impact on our wild species.  Adding to this will be the destruction of the wildlife corridors caused. I wish the council to take these objections into account and refuse the planning applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 12640

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Maddocks

I&O_13157
I am writing to object to the plans to build on Green Belt land next to Hob Hey Wood. This area is an important part of our community. It provides essential green space, supports wildlife, and is a big part of Frodsham’s identity. Building here would increase flood risk, damage ancient woodland, destroy habitats, and take away countryside that local people rely on for health and wellbeing. The development would also put huge additional  pressures on our local roads, schools, GPs and dentists, which are already stretched to their maximum capacity. Not only that, but a plan of this scale will worsen the air quality and be yet another cause of pollution. Once this land is lost, we cannot get it back. Therefore, I strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reject policies SS41 , SS42 and SS43 and protect Hob Hey Wood for future generations. Please think again about your decision. This is not the right place for large-scale housing, and it never will be.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12651

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mick Ord

I&O_13168
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: 12687

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Bradburne

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_13204
The Hob Hey woodland is an ancient woodland housing an abundance of wildlife. It has long been a haven for residents of Frodsham young and old to enjoy. Any consideration of destroying this area for houses is absolutely horrifying and should it ever be approved then the Council will face protests especially when there are brown belt spaces in CWAC that could be used. The displacement of the Ecosystem of such a scale can't be justified under any circumstances. The transport links in Frodsham are already awful. The schools aren't big enough to cope. Frodsham does not have the infrastructure to cope with a big housing plan. Doctors, dentists, leisure facilities etc. The area is totally unsuitable for houses. Its a woodland area that needs to remain a local spot for walkers and nature. Houses in this area would be catastrophic for Frodsham and I hope Hob Hey wood will be left alone by greedy builders.