Comment

Representation ID: 13242

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Deanna Pine

I&O_13761
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: 13245

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Ellison

SS 41
I&O_13764
I strongly object to the above policies regarding the building of any new homes in this area. The traffic is horrendous even now and becomes gridlocked with any M56 problems which occur regularly and Frodsham does not have the infrastructure for such large numbers of new houses to be built.

Comment

Representation ID: 13248

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Brendan Ellison

I&O_13767
Policies SS41, SS42 & SS43 I want to object in the strongest terms to the above policies. Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding area should be left undeveloped and remain as it is for the benefit of the local community.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13257

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jim Thomas

SS 41
I&O_13776
I object to planning policies SS41,SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 13262

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Carden Group

I&O_13781
The growth area identified as FRO01, on the eastern edge of Frodsham, is in our view the most suitable of the three potential options. This is primarily due to its high level of accessibility. For example from the centre of the site, all three primary schools in Frodsham, Manor House, St Luke’s, and Frodsham CofE, are all located within one mile, offering shorter walking distances than the other 2 identified growth areas. The site is also less than a mile from key town-centre services, including the train station and Morrisons supermarket. The site also provides the greatest opportunity to strengthen connections to a wide range of existing community assets, including Top Park Playground, the Community Orchard, and Hob Hey Wood. These assets would themselves be enhanced through the delivery of an integrated open space network. From a Green Belt perspective, FRO01 also represents one of the more logical green belt release opportunities, as it is naturally bounded to the east by Hob Hey Wood. By contrast, development of the full extent of FRO03 would significantly reduce the separation between Frodsham and neighbouring Helsby, increasing the risk of coalescence between the two settlements.

Comment

Representation ID: 13274

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Keeley Barton

I&O_13793
I am writing to object to the development planned on land that is currently for sale close to Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham. I am objecting to policies SS41, SS42, SS43. Building houses or other buildings close to an historic wood is not acceptable and would be a permanent loss of community and green space while destroying wildlife habitats and thus would cause irreparable damage to ancient woodland. It would increase the risk of flooding in the area while also causing a lowering of air quality and more light pollution. In addition to the catastrophic envronmental damage additional housing would cause more issues with traffic in an area which is often gridlocked. Langdale Way and Fluin Lane would become even busier. House prices locally would be negatively affected and there would be additional strain on local services including GPs, dentists and local primary and Secondary Schools. For these reasons any planning application to build houses on the land should NOT be granted.

Comment

Representation ID: 13279

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer and Graham Burgess

I&O_13798
We would like to officially object to planning being sought to building houses on land surrounding / adjacent to Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham. I undertstand I need to refer to SS41, SS42 and SS43 in the planning document. A reference to 500 new houses has been mentioned but we would appreciate it if you could send us any documentation you have on this subject. I was born in Ellis Lane, Frodsham and want the green belt kept for all time as a recreation for people and wildlife to enjoy and it must be protected. Very concerned local residents with eight grandchildren.

Comment

Representation ID: 13282

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Burgess

I&O_13801
We would like to officially object to planning being sought to building houses on land surrounding / adjacent to Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham. I undertstand I need to refer to SS41, SS42 and SS43 in the planning document. A reference to 500 new houses has been mentioned but we would appreciate it if you could send us any documentation you have on this subject. I was born in Ellis Lane, Frodsham and want the green belt kept for all time as a recreation for people and wildlife to enjoy and it must be protected. Very concerned local residents with eight grandchildren.

Comment

Representation ID: 13316

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Aimee Bebbington

I&O_13835
I am writing to formally object to the proposed planning and building of housing in Frodsham. While I understand the need for new housing, this particular development (FRO1 and FRO2) would have significant adverse impacts on the environment, community, and local infrastructure, which I outline below: SS41- FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 13319

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Chaplin

I&O_13838
No to FRO01 and FRO02 - objection for Hob Hey Woods development I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. My family use Hob Hey Wood a lot and it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13324

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Ferguson

I&O_13843
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 13362

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Stacey Townley

SS 41
I&O_13881
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 13367

Received: 31/08/2025

Respondent: Jonathan Yarker

I&O_13886
I wish to object to the development plans for Hob Hey wood (SS41, SS42 and SS43). I am aware there is a need for more housing and infrastructure in the UK but this cannot be done in such a beautiful and biodiversity rich land such as Hob Hey Wood. This would destroy habitats for many mammals, birds and insects, as well as seriously exacerbate flood risk. My family and I love visiting the woods, as do many other families, and it would be a heartbreaking shame if you just did away with this beautiful land.

Comment

Representation ID: 13370

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Barker

I&O_13889
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.   My family and friends enjoy Hob Hey Wood regularly and it would be unforgivable to allow the destruction of this wonderful woodland area that has been a part of the natural Frodsham landscape for generations. As the last remaining bit of ancient woodland in the area which supports native species of plants, animals and insects specific to ancient woodland, it is beyond belief that this is being considered for building and must not be allowed. We must stop building on our green areas and greenbelt.  My neighbours are many of the 80 tenants in the allotment site also being considered. They have, as a young family, poured blood sweat and tears into cultivating this land over the past 5 years and are finally seeing the literal fruits of their labours. Their children are growing up enjoying this site and learning about nature, and it is vital to their continued development and education. The local community feels that our green spaces are essential to making this village unique and special and coupled with the current overwhelmed infrastructure consisting of schools at capacity, doctors with no availability for new patients and roads at saturation points, which has caused irreparable damage to their surfaces and are not being satisfactorily maintained, this proposal must not be allowed to continue .  We, a community as a whole, do not want or support these plans and insist that our voices are heard. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13410

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Townley

I&O_13929
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 13423

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kimberley Gould

I&O_13942
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: 13428

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Mckeown

I&O_13947
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: 13432

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jess Wharton

I&O_13951
I object to policy SS41.   As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13438

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Iryna Garkusha

I&O_13957
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. My family with 2 children 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: 13441

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Maya Bell

I&O_13960
I am writing to object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. My family and I often walk round these woods and have done for the past decade. They are a peaceful place filled with wildlife and hidden trails and I do not think developers should be allowed to build here. Frodsham already lacks woods and to ruin this place would be a shame for the whole community.  I am 20 years old but I enjoy these woods and would not want them to be ruined. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13452

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Phillip Prescott

I&O_13971
I am objecting to policy SS41.   I am a Frodsham resident and have lived here for over 25 years. I value the benefits of our small town, belonging to a 'village' community, the small local schools and the access to surrounding countryside.  I believe that many other residents have remained here or moved here for similar reasons.  Over the years, new residential developments have been created, but in my opinion we are now approaching saturation point. I believe this proposed development will be detrimental to the local area for many reasons. It will cause destruction, contamination and damage to what I believe to be protected Greenbelt,  to local nature - wildlife, ancient woodlands and rare species.  Frodsham is an area where the local nature and the ability to preserve and enjoy its benefits are highly valued, both by many locals and visitors alike.  The sheer volume of the heavy plant and vehicles required to install the infrastructure required for this kind of development alone is likely to be extremely damaging to a wide area of Frodsham.  Should the development go ahead, once in place, there will be   pollution of air, light and noise quality. The increase in local traffic will also result in further congestion of our roads, which are already suffering from large volumes of traffic on a regular basis, access problems which could be potentially dangerous, and misery for those of us who live in the vicinity.  We risk losing the woodland and fields surrounding the site, which are valued by many for the ability to walk through them and gain the benefits of our local 'outdoors'.   There would be increased pressure on our already severely overloaded health and dental practices, and create the risk of our children losing access to local schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 13459

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Prescott

I&O_13978
I am objecting to policy SS41.   I am a Frodsham resident and have lived here for 65 years. Having moved here as a small child, and grown up here, I specifically chose to bring my own family up in our small town because of the benefits of belonging to a 'village' community, the small local schools and the access to surrounding countryside.  I believe that many other residents have remained here or moved here for similar reasons.  Over the years, new residential developments have been created, but we are now approaching saturation point. In my opinion this proposed development will be detrimental to the local area for many reasons. It will cause destruction, contamination and damage to what I believe to be protected Greenbelt,  to local nature - wildlife, ancient woodlands and rare species.  Frodsham is an area where the local nature and the ability to preserve and enjoy its benefits are highly valued, both by many locals and visitors alike.  The sheer volume of the heavy plant and vehicles required to install the infrastructure required for this kind of development alone is likely to be extremely damaging to a wide area of Frodsham.  Should the development go ahead, once in place, there will be   pollution of air light and noise quality. The increase in local traffic will also result in further congestion of our roads, which are already suffering from large volumes of traffic on a regular basis, access problems which could be potentially dangerous, and misery for those of us who live in the vicinity.  We risk losing the woodland and fields surrounding the site, which are valued by many for the ability to walk through them and gain the benefits of our local 'outdoors'.   There would be increased pressure on our already severely overloaded health and dental practices, and create the risk of our children losing access to local schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 13477

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Rachael Frank

I&O_13996
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: 13485

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Dance

I&O_14004
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads

Comment

Representation ID: 13491

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Amy Gregory-Cowx

I&O_14010
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 13496

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Gregory

I&O_14015
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.   As a family we regularly visit Hob Hey Wood and strongly object the removal of this important and locally treasured green area. I also don’t feel adequate assurance has been made to the impact to local services such as doctors, schooling and infrastructure like our local roads.

Comment

Representation ID: 13518

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Macleod

I&O_14037
SS41, SS42, SS43 I am objecting to the planning policies above. I feel that green belt farming land should be built upon only as an absolute last resort. I have lived in Thirlmere Close since June 1983 and purchased this property as I had nice, quiet, open aspect, farming land to the rear of the property. This is why I have never moved house. I would like to see all brownfield sites built on first ,such as has happened with the ex BICC site in Helsby before infill land becomes earmarked for development. I am sure there are some sites in Frodsham that can be non green belt which can be developed first. There are traffic problems getting out of Langdale Road onto Fluin lane and Fluin Lane onto High Street/Bridge Street at present and any further increase could cause gridlock at peak times. This would also increase air pollution. Any development towards Hob Hey Wood would endanger wildlife such as badgers and foxes which roam the fields, as well as butterflies, birds and insects which live around this area. I would worry about the loss of dark skies that we currently have over this area and the pollution caused by the additional population.  The doctors and dentists are already at breakingpoint and car parking in the town is increasingly difficult before any new properties are constructed. I hope you take the above into consideration before you decide to build on our valuable green belt land which is irreplaceable and refuse these applications.

Comment

Representation ID: 13520

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne Shaw

I&O_14039
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 13528

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jay Fraser

I&O_14047
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. This is with specific reference to SS41, SS42 and SS43. 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. 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 28 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Please confirm receipt of this objection and ensure it is formally recorded against the proposal.

Comment

Representation ID: 13533

Received: 30/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Hough

I&O_14052
We object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43