Comment

Representation ID: 12702

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: C Harvey

I&O_13220
Of the areas shown FRO01, FRO02 & FRO03 are completely unsuitable for Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 12708

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Ashton

I&O_13226
I write to object the planning proposal of the above, the rational for this objection is as follows – • The current Infrastructure in Frodsham is already at capacity with congestion throughout the town when there is a incident on the M56. • It is already very difficult to obtain a GP appointment additional houses will add to this strain. • Schools already at capacity. • Destruction of wildlife corridors. • Damage to Ancient Woodlands. • Worse air quality. • Falling house prices. • Loss of community and green spaces.  

Comment

Representation ID: 12727

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Baines

I&O_13245
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 due to the type of ground around Bradley Lane, (FR001) especially south of Bradley Lane (FR002) which is susceptible to flooding and in the past has had much work done on it to try and prevent the flooding. 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. 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: 12735

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Graham

FR001 and FR002
I&O_13253
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is unacceptable and frankly dangerous. 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 least worst identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion but is still a high risk option.  That being said the whole of Frodsham is overwhelmed by traffic on a daily basis being the main road utilised when the M56 has a crash, an issue which is becoming a daily occurance. It does not have the infrastructure nor the space to install the required strucure needed to service additional housing. Nor does it have sufficient support in terms of schooling - its secondary school being knocked down years ago and replaced by the towns only doctors surgery - which is almost impossible to get an appointment at as it is. I do not wish to imagine the impact of over 1000 more residents fighting for non existent spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 12758

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Paterson

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_13276
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 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 12777

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Joseph Davies

SS 41
I&O_13295
The area at FR003, while on green belt land, is not directly adjacent to woodland. By contrast, FR001 and FR002 sit directly next to Hob Hey Wood, raising significant concerns about the impact on local wildlife and biodiversity. The loss of green space and habitats would cause long-term ecological damage.

Comment

Representation ID: 12785

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Dickinson

I&O_13303
Question SS 41 Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable? Response - 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: 12797

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Caroline Smith

I&O_13315
I am writing to register my very strong objections to the proposed development of Green belt land next to Hob Hey wood in Frodsham and the extensive new housing that you want to be constructed in Frodsham, the policies are SS41, S42 and SS43. I firmly believe that there is not sufficient infrastructure to support new housing and it will have a massively detrimental effect on an already seriously over-subscribed range of services such as schools and GP surgeries. There would also inevitably be massive transport issues on local roads that are already prone to congestion.  I am massively concerned about the destruction of our ancient woodland and a vitally important habitat for many wildlife. This area is also a frequently used and cared for space for the local community which provides a beautiful green haven for the local people. A large amount of new houses and building work would increase air and light pollution which is obviously detrimental to not only wild life but also the community. In my opinion this is just a dreadful and un thought about suggestion, there has been no or very little thought to it and there seem to be absolutely NO pros and hundreds of cons. This has to be stopped and should DEFINITELY NOT go ahead.

Comment

Representation ID: 12811

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Cox

I&O_13329
I have lived in Frodsham since October, 1984, [personal details redacted] I have examined the map of Frodsham Growth Options 5.10 which highlights three areas of suggested locations for possible housing development which I believe to be incorporated into the 2024 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan covering the period 2024-2030. It is my opinion that FR003 offers the most suitable area for expansion because of its closer proximity to the town centre with good access to Castle Park, the A56 and Helsby High School in the opposite (westward) direction.

Comment

Representation ID: 12819

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Ellis

I&O_13337
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: 12851

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Cawood

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_13370
I do not agree with the allocation of these sites. The proposals would be highly damaging to Frodsham. Local people supported the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan, which identified a balanced and sustainable number of new homes, primarily on brownfield sites. By contrast, these allocations are out of scale, poorly located, and inconsistent with both the Local Plan’s vision and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). They would fail on key grounds including safe access, sustainable transport, biodiversity protection, and flood risk management.

Comment

Representation ID: 12854

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs K Hoey

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_13373
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: 12905

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Steve Eastwood

SS 41
I&O_13424
Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 12967

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Megan Scott

I&O_13486
Question SS 41 Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable? 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: 12991

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Angela Pennington

I&O_13510
I am sending this to object to policy SS41. I am objecting that development would 1) put a strain on the surrounding roads causing congestion. 2) Local doctors, schools would be unable to provide effective service to patients and pupils. 3) The air quality would be impacted due to more vehicles in the area. 4) Wildlife habitat would be impacted. 5) Loss of green spaces

Comment

Representation ID: 13041

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Simone Spinillo

I&O_13560
I am writing in response to the consultation document regarding the proposed housing developments in Frodsham (sites FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03). I strongly believe that the land off Chester Road is unsuitable for development for several reasons: The area is already subject to frequent flooding, particularly from the bottom of Matty’s Lane down Godscroft Lane to its exit at Chester Road. Development here would only exacerbate this existing flood risk. Local infrastructure is already under significant strain, with residents experiencing difficulty accessing GP appointments and limited public transport services. Chester Road regularly suffers severe traffic congestion, particularly when there are issues on the M56. Additional housing would worsen this problem considerably. Development would destroy important wildlife corridors, as this stretch of Green Belt connects the marshes with other protected areas such as Frodsham Woods.  Furthermore, the land adjoining Hob Hey Wood should not be developed. Hob Hey is an ancient woodland and a designated site of biological interest, home to thousands of species and highly valued by the local community for recreation and wellbeing. Any development here would cause severe and irreversible ecological damage. I believe that proposals to build on Green Belt land are misguided and undermine the very purpose of its designation. Green Belt policy exists to safeguard access to open space, protect biodiversity, and preserve the natural character that makes Frodsham an attractive place to live—combining close links to cities with connection to nature and countryside. Allowing development on this land sets a dangerous precedent, eroding public trust in protections that are meant to be enduring. I urge the council and government to uphold their responsibility to protect Green Belt land and to champion development that works in harmony with nature, rather than against it.

Comment

Representation ID: 13064

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca and Gavin Attwood

I&O_13583
I am writing to share my objection to the planning for housing suggested in the Frodsham area. Specifically policies SS41, SS42, SS43. There are a number of reasons for these objections I have listed below: - increased flood risk - more gridlock on the roads through Frodsham. The roads are already difficult with Frodsham centre frequently being at a standstill. Also with the frequent problems with the motorway this will only add to these. - Strain on GPs, Dentists and Schools - these facilities in our area are already under strain and pressure. It is increasingly difficult to get a GP appointment, the schools are oversubscribed yearly. - destruction to the wildlife corridors - damage to ancient woodland - the green belt and rural links are incredibly important to the residents of Frodsham. The history of the woodland and the wildlife is unique and valuable to the area. - worse Air quality and light pollution - falling house prices - loss of community and green space

Comment

Representation ID: 13083

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Sam Freer

I&O_13602
I would like to object to policies SS41, SS42, and SS43 I feel that this building work would cause the following issues - Increased flood risk More gridlock on Frodsham roads Strain on GPs, dentists and schools Destruction of wildlife corridors Damage to ancient woodland Worse air quality and light pollution Falling house prices Loss of community green space

Support

Representation ID: 13103

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Olga Lilley

I&O_13622
I wish to object to the proposed development of housing on green belt land adjacent to Frodsham – Policies SS41, SS42, and SS43. The sites SS41 and SS42 particularly are areas of ancient woodland – Hob Hey Wood – maintained and protected by generations of local people. The loss of these woods would be catastrophic to the ecology of our already dwindling natural countryside. In addition, Frodsham road system is frequently gridlocked due to its close proximity to the adjacent motorway. A large increase in housing to the area would create chaos of unmanageable proportions.

Comment

Representation ID: 13106

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Hayley Bond

I&O_13625
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we use Hob Hey Wood lots and it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have.

Comment

Representation ID: 13143

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Hargreaves

I&O_13662
I am objecting to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 13151

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Harry Leather

I&O_13670
I  take considered objection to these above policies especially in the Townfield Lane area of Frodsham on land designated as green belt. Other areas would overload roads, schools and medical  facilities as well as the Townfield Lane area.

Comment

Representation ID: 13156

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Millard

I&O_13675
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.  As a family we use Hob Hey Wood lots and it was be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot, Frodsham is lucky to have. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13159

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Georgina Dewdney

I&O_13678
As a resident of Frodsham I am emailing to STRONGLY object to the destruction to Hob Hey Woodland. Objecting policies : SS41, SS42, SS43  As a family we use these woodlands most weeks and would be absolutely devastated for it to be gone. It is beneficial for our mental health, our physical health and for the well being of the wildlife that live there

Comment

Representation ID: 13162

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Booth

I&O_13681
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.  I'd like to raise an objection to the new houses around hob hey wood, I do not agree with the destruction of this beautiful area which my family uses all the time and also feel that the town's infrastructure cannot support this project.

Comment

Representation ID: 13167

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: James Tennant

SS 41
I&O_13686
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we use Hob Hey Wood lots and it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have.

Comment

Representation ID: 13170

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Millard

I&O_13689
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we use Hob Hey Wood alot - it’s a beautiful, unique and special place.  It would be an absolute disgrace for this area to be destroyed and the planners / house builders need to have a long, hard look at themselves if they think this is the type of land to be built on. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13174

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Stuart Durling

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_13693
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: 13176

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachael Cavanagh

I&O_13695
We are a family of 4 and love Frodsham because of its wonderful nature pockets.  The more development that happens , unfortunately deteriorates the desirability and therefore standard of living we moved to Frodsham to enjoy.   I therefore strongly object to the planning on Hob Hey Wood and to policy SS41.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13190

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Danni Gates

I&O_13709
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we use Hob Hey Wood lots and it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have. And as the last remaining bit of ancient woodland in the area it is a travesty that it is even being considered in these plans. We also have an allotment at the near by site. We have worked tirelessly as a family for the past 5 years to cultivate this plot and are finally seeing the quite literal fruits of our labour. This site houses 80 plots, including community resources and it is a place of peace and family for many. It is not simply green belt land to take away from the community. This is a place people have invested time, money, and care into making something wonderful. I object wholeheartedly to these proposals, this community is what it is because of its green spaces. And unless infrastructure like schools, doctors and better roads are provided we simply could not sustain the influx of houses. A better fix for our government would be to tackle house price rises across the country and rents that outta strip earnings so that local people could afford to stay in the area they were raised. I hope the outpouring of objections from the community is heard and truly listened too. We do not want the destruction of our home. Our cherished nature, in order to tick a box for a government agenda that won’t even help us!