Comment

Representation ID: 13563

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Ridley

I&O_14082
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: 13566

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Russell Gates

I&O_14085
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. As the last remaining bit of ancient woodland in the area it is beyond belief that this is being considered for building!  We are also one of the 80 tenants in the allotment site also being considered. We have, as a young family, poured our blood sweat and tears into cultivating this land over the past 5 years and are finally seeing the literal fruits of our labours. My children have grown up in this site, and it is dear to so many of us. As a community our green spaces are what makes this place special. And the current infrastructure of schools, doctors and roads can not support more housing. We as a community do not want or support these plans and I hope that we are listened too. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13574

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tracy Briscoe-Owens

I&O_14093
Green Belt Protection objections: - The site is within the Green Belt. Development here conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 137–140, which require “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release. - Green Belt protection is a major material consideration in planning decisions. The area surrounding Hob Hey woods especially needs to be protected at all costs, across the UK we are shrinking our indigenous wildlife habitat beyond reasonable limits. Once this land is gone it cannot be replaced. There has already been wind turbine and now solar panel plans on the local marshes which is on a significant migratory path for birds. Has the impact of yet another habitat loss even been considered? There are protected species in the directly impacted area too (newts, bats) -places for local people to enjoy – Hob Hey is widely used by the local and surrounding community. We see the increasing desecration of local habitat. What a shame to lose such a beautiful source. Traffic & Highway Safety - Frodsham already experiences congestion, especially when M56 incidents occur. Additional housing could worsen this. - Concerns over emergency access and construction vehicle impact. -I live on Church Street, and have done for the last 12 years. I have personally seen a substantial increase in traffic across this period, further increase of the proposed house increase cannot be supported on existing roads. The consultation is very complex to navigate and it's difficult to see what countermeasure have been proposed for this. - we have already seen deaths on manley road due to lack of footpaths, and more traffic to these areas will only worsen risk. Also Howey Lane as a 'cut through' does not have a public pathway. Is there proposals for increasing public footpaths, cycling lanes? We are putting our children and community at risk here. I can't actually see what the proposal entails for 'improvements' to frodsham train station. Is is landlocked so carpark spaces will be a challenge. Plus local residents already experience issues of people parking outside their houses. The recent additional of 'Greggs' bakery to the petrol station on Bridge lane in Frodsham has significantly impacted waiting traffic and jams as peak hours - more houses/cards/people will worsen this. -and on all of the above - potholes cannot be taken care of now safely! What's the proposal to improve road maintenance/associated budgets in portion to the increase volumes? Strain on Infrastructure (GPs, schools, etc.) - Existing public services are overstretched, it is (near impossible) to get a dentist appointment or doctors appointment within a suitable timeframes. What are the proposed countermeasures for this? Again, the consultation document is so complex to navigate and this is not the industry I work in so I cannot see what the proposed counter measure is to this. -likewise, is there a proposal for school place increase. I have 3 children in school age, Frodsham secondary school was closed so the only local secondary school of reasonable walking distance is Helsby high, can both primary and secondary schools support this increase? Also with SEN services, these again are ridiculously stretched not only int eh area but in the country as a whole, what is the proposal to support this proportionately? -as above, the Infrastructure on roads, public transport, is strained. Sewage & Flooding Risks - Historical surface water flooding in Langdale Way; major interventions were needed in the past. - Concerns about impermeable surfaces increasing runoff and pollution. -again as a Church Street resident I have first hand experience of the flood/run off waters that come down when rainfall is high, and my cellar floods. This will only be exacerbated by the proposals. This is a major concern. Harm to Biodiversity and Ancient Woodland (Hob Hey Wood) - Hob Hey is ancient woodland – irreplaceable habitat loss and protected species loss - Development could disrupt wildlife corridors, increase pollution and disturbance (including light and pet intrusion). Contrary to the NPPF's sustainability principles - Claims that the site was chosen purely for proximity to the train station, not its environmental suitability. - Unsustainable development (environmentally or socially) is contrary to core planning principles in the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 13580

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Reddy

I&O_14099
I want to object to policies ss41 ss42 and ss43. this is to protect hob hey wood and our wildlife and to also protect our quality of living.

Comment

Representation ID: 13594

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Miranda Latham

I&O_14113
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: 13597

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nathaniel Jonescand

I&O_14116
I am extremely concerned and I am writing about SS41, SS42, SS43 proposals for Frodsham housing development. I know having been a recent property buyer in the area the importance of housing stock and accessibility to the housing market. It makes me very angry that people of my age cannot have access to housing in the local area, and even small properties are expensive.    That being said, I am appalled at the proposals outlined above, they clearly have no appreciation for the current infrastructure or residents or the area and show a lack of thought and care for the community of Frodsham. This area is unsuitable for a number of reasons which I have outlined below, I would urge you to consider in particular the impact on current infrastructure in line with planning proposals.    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. 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 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 ). 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   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/ ). 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 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: 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  

Comment

Representation ID: 13620

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Roger Samson Taylor

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_14139
In the context of Policies SS41–SS43, please record the following objections: Loss of scientific woodland and biodiversity The sites border/contain established, ecologically significant woodland that supports rare and protected species. Development here risks irreversible habitat damage and conflicts with local and national biodiversity priorities. Destruction of community allotments and productive farmland These areas are vital for local food resilience, wellbeing, and heritage. Allotments in particular provide substantial social and mental-health benefits. Their loss would permanently diminish Frodsham’s character and sustainability. Inadequate transport infrastructure Frodsham already experiences gridlock, especially when incidents occur on the M56. Local roads were not designed for further heavy traffic. Without credible mitigation and sustainable transport options, additional housing will worsen congestion, air quality, and safety. Strain on community services Schools, healthcare and community facilities are already under pressure. Absent major, secured investment in supporting infrastructure, the development would be unsustainable. Complaint regarding the site-selection process and competence In addition to my objection, please treat this as a formal complaint under your corporate complaints procedure. The fact that FRO01 and FRO02 have progressed to consideration suggests serious deficiencies in the site-selection methodology, professional judgement and governance applied. I request that the authority: Publishes the full evidence base and scoring that led to FRO01/FRO02 being shortlisted (ecology, flood risk, heritage, landscape, transport modelling, utilities capacity, health/equalities impacts, and deliverability). Provides the site appraisal matrix for FRO01/FRO02, including criteria, weightings, raw scores, and the names/roles of the panels or officers who signed off each stage. Confirms the competence framework used (qualifications, chartered status/registrations such as RTPI or equivalent, relevant experience and CPD) for those who assessed and recommended these sites, and discloses any conflicts of interest considered. Commissions an independent review of the site-selection process for these locations and publishes the findings and any corrective actions. Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (and, where applicable, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004), please disclose and publish an itemised breakdown of all costs incurred in developing and promoting the FRO01/FRO02 proposals (e.g., consultancy fees, surveys/reports, modelling, legal advice, staff time, and external communications), with a response within the statutory 20 working days. To be clear, I am asking for a review of the decision-making process and the competence assurance applied, not making allegations against any individual. However, I expect a transparent explanation of how such environmentally sensitive and infrastructurally constrained sites could have advanced to this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 13624

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Janine Ellams

I&O_14143
I am objecting to the following policies: SS41 SS42 SS43 This land must be protected at all costs, not only just because of its natural beauty but because of the impact on the list I have set out below: Loss of prime agricultural land, at a time when we should be looking at increasing home grown production to cut down on imports which have a major roll in polluting the environment. Extra strain on our public services, dentist, doctors, and schools. Increased Flood Risk More Gridlock on Frodsham Roads Destruction of Wildlife Corridors Damage to Ancient Woodland Worse Air Quality & Light Pollution Loss of Community and Green Space Please keep your hands off our Greenbelt, it is like we’re going backwards, to a time when the planet wasn’t burning under the weight of fossil fuels and a consumer over consumption capitalist economy, so much damage has already been done, time to rethink how we use the spaces we haven’t already destroyed which ultimately gives a few people a short term profit and leaves the rest of us to live with the mess. We must protect our environments especially those which have escaped destruction over past decades.

Comment

Representation ID: 13630

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Worrall

I&O_14149
i wish to register my objection to the policies above these sites are totally unsuitable for housing for many reasons 1 damage to ancient woodlands hobey wood in particular ,hundreds of species of birds animals butterflies insects bats to many to list . 2 destruction of hedgerows again natural habitat for wildlife 3 lossof community and green space4 drainage sewerage in particular sewerage from lansdowne springbourne estates pumped up bradley lane ,when this system fails as it periodically does raw sewage ends up in the river weaver , this proposed policy might need a similar  system on the land behind fairways and bradley lane due to the slopes of field again this pumped system would have to be maintainedby cheshire west  5gridlock on roads  6 more strain on medical services and schools  6 worse air and light pollution 7 falling property prices . while i understand the need for more housing especially affordable housing .the a56 corridor to helsby is more suitable level fields acsesssto main road and services affordable houses would slot in better. sites proposed developers wouldnot include affordable houses due to the high cost developing polices ss41 2 3 

Comment

Representation ID: 13641

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Frodsham Town Council

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_14160
I would  like to OBJECT to any development on sites Fro01 and Fro02. These areas are green belt, and cannot be construed as grey belt. They include areas of significant biological interest,  and mitigate flooding, and provide wildlife corridors.  It would be unacceptable to build houses on this important area of ancient woodland. Fro03 is the best of the three areas, assuming suitable connection to the a56 can be made. A development there would allow much needed improvement to the a56.

Comment

Representation ID: 13649

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Donna Rhodes

I&O_14168
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.  As a family we use Hob Hey Wood for many of years and still do, it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have.

Comment

Representation ID: 13656

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Amy and Dan Evans

I&O_14175
formally object to the proposed development of sites FRO01 ("Frodsham East") and FRO02 ("Frodsham South") as identified in the "Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18)" document. My objection is based on a number of serious and legally valid material planning considerations, which I believe are not adequately addressed by the current proposals.   The proposal to release these Green Belt sites is contrary to the overarching principles of sustainable development and the specific policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan.   Green Belt Protection and Failure to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances The proposed sites, FRO01 and FRO02, are designated Green Belt land. According to NPPF paragraphs 137–140, development within the Green Belt is considered "inappropriate" unless "very special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" are proven to exist. The Local Plan document fails to provide any clear, evidenced justification that these sites are the only viable option. It presents no evidence that brownfield sites or less sensitive land were seriously considered first. The release of Green Belt land must be a last resort. The claim that the sites were chosen simply due to proximity to the train station, rather than their environmental suitability, is a direct contradiction of NPPF sustainability principles. Therefore, I argue that sites FRO01 and FRO02 are entirely unsuitable for development and must be removed from consideration.   Major Infrastructure Strain (Relating to SS43) The proposed development would place an unacceptable strain on Frodsham's existing and already fragile infrastructure. The document acknowledges that "traffic congestion can be an issue in the town centre and on connecting roads" (page 120). A significant increase in population from an estimated 1,300+ homes across FRO01 and FRO02 would inevitably lead to gridlock on local roads, particularly the A56, with no guaranteed infrastructure improvements to mitigate this impact. This would also compromise emergency access. Furthermore, local GP practices and schools are already operating at or near full capacity. The plan fails to provide concrete proposals for the delivery of new, essential infrastructure to support this scale of development, which is a key requirement of the council's own policies.   Sewage, Flooding Risks, and New Drainage Standards The proposed sites are part of Frodsham’s natural water absorption zone. Removing this permeable land will significantly increase surface water runoff and flood risk, not only on the development sites themselves but also for neighbouring communities. There is historical evidence of surface water flooding and sewage issues in areas such as Langdale Way, which required major interventions in the past. The proposal to build here directly contradicts the council’s flood risk strategy, which aims to "avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property" and to "minimise the risk of flooding from all sources" (FW 1, page 197). This also conflicts with the new government guidance on Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) published in June 2025, which mandates a strict hierarchy for rainwater management, protection against extreme rainfall, and water quality protection. The development cannot credibly meet these new standards without causing harm to the wider area.   Environmental Sensitivity and Harm to Hob Hey Wood The proposed sites border or directly impact Hob Hey Wood, which is a designated Site of Biological Importance and a precious fragment of ancient woodland. The Local Plan document’s own policy approach states that development "must... not result in any net loss of natural assets and deliver a net gain" (GI 1, page 207). Developing on these areas would destroy vital wildlife corridors and buffer zones, causing irreversible harm to this sensitive ecosystem. The document lacks the necessary comprehensive environmental and ecological assessments to justify the potential damage. This proposal is in direct conflict with the council's own policies on Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity.   Community Impact, Wellbeing and Existing Facilities The loss of green spaces for development would have a detrimental effect on the health and wellbeing of Frodsham’s residents. These sites are valued by the community for walking, mental health, and recreation, and they are integral to the local identity. The proposal contradicts the NPPF’s aim to "promote healthy and inclusive communities" by taking away these vital green spaces without adequate replacement. The plan also fails to consider the impact on Frodsham's existing community infrastructure, as the development of land near these sites would threaten the Frodsham Sea Scouts building on Greenfield Lane. This facility is a vital community asset that provides a crucial service for hundreds of young people.   Policy Breach and Final Position The Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan remains a vital part of local planning policy and continues to carry legal weight. This plan reflects community priorities for protecting green spaces, managing traffic, and ensuring housing meets local needs. The proposals for sites FRO01 and FRO02 are in direct conflict with both the spirit and specific policies of this plan.   I strongly and unequivocally object to any development on Green Belt sites FRO01 and FRO02. The proposal conflicts with both national and local policies concerning Green Belt protection, sustainable development, environmental preservation, and community wellbeing. Granting permission for these sites would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for the continued erosion of Frodsham's Green Belt. I respectfully demand that these sites be fully removed from the Local Plan Review. The council must uphold its statutory duty to protect Green Belt land and only consider truly justified alternatives, which is not the case here.   I also wish to make it clear that the same principles of Green Belt protection, environmental sensitivity, and infrastructure strain apply to other Green Belt areas proposed for development in the consultation, such as those mentioned in Questions SS45 (Helsby) and SS47 (Kelsall).

Comment

Representation ID: 13664

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Faith Howley

I&O_14183
I am objecting to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. I am a Frodsham resident. Having grown up here with my family, I moved away for a few years for University and my work, but chose to return to 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: 13667

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Parker

I&O_14186
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 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: 13686

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Burgess

I&O_14206
I would like to object to policies: SS41, SS42 and SS43 Yours faithfully

Comment

Representation ID: 13687

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrea Critchley

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_14207
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: 13692

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Henderson

I&O_14212
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.  As a family we use Hob Hey Woods frequently, and it's a great place for children to explore in a forest school type setting. In addition the reduction in green areas would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity, social health and wellbeing and the a reduction in Frodsham's CO2 absorbing abilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 13695

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Parker

I&O_14215
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 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: 13780

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Molly Jones

I&O_14300
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development site allocations SS41, SS42, and SS43 as outlined in the current Local Plan consultation. These proposals raise several serious concerns for myself and many others in the local community, including: • Pressure on Local Infrastructure: The developments would place additional strain on already overburdened infrastructure such as roads, schools, and healthcare services. Access to GP appointments is already limited, and school capacity in the area is under significant pressure. • Impact on Green Space and Biodiversity: The sites lie within or adjacent to Green Belt land and include areas of important natural habitat. Hob Hey Wood, in particular, is a valued local amenity, rich in biodiversity and used by many residents. These developments would cause irreversible damage to this sensitive environment. • Increased Traffic and Road Safety Concerns: The proposed developments would significantly increase traffic through the village and surrounding areas, particularly during peak times. Many local roads are narrow and not designed to accommodate high volumes of traffic, raising concerns about road safety, congestion, and increased air pollution. • Character of the Area: The scale and density of the proposed housing are not in keeping with the existing character of our historic market town. Such large-scale developments would alter the town’s identity and may negatively impact local property values. • Flood Risk: The area includes several streams and watercourses, and further development could exacerbate local flooding issues, particularly with the loss of permeable green land. In light of these concerns, I believe these developments would negatively affect both the environment and the well-being of current and future residents. I urge the Council to remove SS41, SS42, and SS43 from the Local Plan and to consider more appropriate, sustainable alternatives.

Comment

Representation ID: 13850

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Eve Dougherty

I&O_14370
Page 11,  FRO01 and FRO02. Local plan issues and options - 5.1 Key questions: SS41, SS42, SS43 This Development Must Not Go Ahead 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. 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)   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/ ). 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 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 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 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 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 ). 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 Infrastructure on Bradley Lane Bradley Lane has no mains drainage  Many houses on Bradley lane have no mains drainage and the soak aways are in the fields were the developments are planned. This would be a huge cost and distruption as they would have to be put on mains drainage. In addition, the lane is too narrow for additional traffic and already has collapsed drains that cause traffic problems in icy weather that have not been repaired by the local authority. 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 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. 

Comment

Representation ID: 13853

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Holly Henderson

I&O_14373
I object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.  As a family we use Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding fields lots and it would be awful to see it go. Such a beautiful spot that Frodsham is lucky to have.  

Comment

Representation ID: 13866

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Stone

I&O_14386
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: 13935

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: India Freer-Carmichael

I&O_14455
I would like to object to policy SS41. 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

Comment

Representation ID: 13941

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Stone

I&O_14461
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: 13950

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Anderson

I&O_14470
I am writing to object to policy SS41 of the proposed development plan as it will cause irreversible environmental damage and place unnecessary added strain on already struggling local services. As a young person who has lived in Frodsham all my life, I am grateful for the beautiful historic woodland of Hob Hey Wood and abundance of green space which contributes to high air quality, improved physical and mental health outcomes (which has been proven by countless accredited medical studies and meta-analyses), in addition to providing habitats for hundreds of different species. The destruction of this space would firstly cause immense ecological damage to the native wildlife, in addition to removing a prime area for exercise, fresh air, socialisation and stress relief. There would also be increased air and light pollution (which creates risk factors for respiratory and ophthalmic diseases), in addition to increased flood risk as these green spaces absorb excess rainwater, hence their loss would put the local community in danger that was seldom a problem previously. Moreover, the services in Frodsham barely support the current population, with many residents struggling to get a GP appointment from the horrendous backlog at our one remaining practice, and the main roads often being very busy for most of the year. To dramatically increase the population, with new deteriorated health outcomes from a loss of green space, would be wholly irresponsible as the existing services cannot care for them without massive investment and upheaval. Furthermore, the roads to many of the proposed development sites are of poor quality, being very narrow, poorly lit and near livestock. Thus, to properly access any new housing estates, you would have to destroy even more land to create better roads and potentially a bypass to prevent increased gridlock, not only on existing estates but in the town centre also.  To conclude, I have been very fortunate to have grown up in such a beautiful rural area and can only implore you to allow the current and future generations to continue enjoying this incredible and irreplicable space.

Comment

Representation ID: 13953

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Pay

I&O_14473
I am writing to you to raise my strongest objection to any current or future planning application to the development of unwanted housing on Hob Hey Wood.    This is an appalling land grab on one of the coveted natural areas surrounding Frodsham and would lead to unwanted damage to not only the wood but all its living animals and insects.  Also it would lead to the following: 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 & Light Pollution Falling House Prices Loss of Community and Green Space Please reject this planning application NOW!

Comment

Representation ID: 13994

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Llinos Brennen

I&O_14517
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of housing on the fields just off Bradley Lane, adjacent to the ancient woodland near Frodsham. As a local resident, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact this development would have on both the environment and our local infrastructure. This site borders ancient woodland, which is an irreplaceable and ecologically sensitive habitat. My family and I regularly walk in this area and deeply value its peace, wildlife, and connection to nature. These green spaces play a vital role in community well-being and should be protected, not encroached upon. Beyond the environmental concerns, there are also serious questions about the capacity of local infrastructure to cope with further development. Local schools are already at or near full capacity, and securing places for children is becoming increasingly difficult for families in the area. An increase in population without corresponding investment in education, healthcare, and transport infrastructure would place even greater strain on services that are already stretched thin, negatively impacting the quality of life for both new and existing residents. For all these reasons — environmental, social, and infrastructural — I strongly urge you to reject this planning application and to prioritise the protection of our green spaces and the sustainability of our local community.

Comment

Representation ID: 14000

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nicholas Johnson

I&O_14529
i want to object to policy ss41 . this is to protect hob hey wood and our wildlife and to also protect our quality of living.

Comment

Representation ID: 14007

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Scholes

I&O_14544
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: 14016

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Geraldine Dobson

I&O_14553
I am writing to strongly object to the proposed housing developments outlined in policy SS41 on Green Belt land in Frodsham. I have lived in Frodsham for 50 years, and I am deeply concerned about the impact these estates would have on our community, environment, and already stretched infrastructure.   Firstly, I wish to make clear that I am sympathetic and supportive of the government’s aims to build more affordable homes across the country. However, I do not believe that building on this area of local beauty and protected Green Belt is the appropriate location. There appears to have been little consideration given to the use of unoccupied buildings locally or brownfield sites, which could provide much-needed housing without destroying valued countryside.   My specific objections are as follows:   * Loss of character and community: Building over 1,300 houses will fundamentally alter the culture and sense of community that makes Frodsham unique.   * Traffic and infrastructure: Our local roads already suffer from congestion, severe potholes and the existing network is not suitable for the increased traffic these estates would generate. Access to the sites is not adequate and will cause serious safety and capacity issues.   * Strain on public services: Public services like health centres, dentists and schools in the area are already oversubscribed. The developments would put additional, unsustainable pressure on these essential services.   * Drainage issues: My property directly overlooks one of the proposed development sites. All properties on this road rely on septic tanks, and a large estate of this scale would require a complete overhaul of drainage systems, creating major cost and significant risk of flooding and pollution.   * Environmental harm:Hob Hey Wood is an ancient  woodland and a much-loved community asset. These developments would destroy wildlife corridors, damage biodiversity, and undermine efforts to protect our local environment.   * Lack of local benefit: No clear evidence has been presented to show how these developments will positively contribute to Frodsham’s economy, infrastructure, or services. Without these assurances, it is difficult to see how such harm can be justified.   For these reasons, I urge the Council to reject policies SS41, SS42 and SS43 and protect Frodsham’s Green Belt, countryside, and community.