Comment

Representation ID: 14069

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: John Davies

FR003
I&O_14612
I consider FR003 as best potential growth area for Frodsham although the extent of the development should be as limited as possible. I also feel the Brook House area should be developed as mentioned in previous local plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 14079

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Miller

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_14622
I am writing to express my response in relation to the proposed planning in the Local Plan document - namely in relation to the planning proposal for Frodsham - ref FRO01 and FRO02, (SS41, SS42 and SS43). My objections are as follows: Green Belt Protection - The site is within the Green Belt. Green Belt protection is a major consideration in planning decisions. I do not feel development on this particular green belt would qualify as "exceptional circumstances." Traffic & Highway Safety - Frodsham already experiences significant congestion through the town, especially when incidents occur on the M56. On occasion, I have been unable to collect my children on time from their childcare settings in the town due to this congestion. Additional housing could exacerbate this. - substantial changes need to be made to the existing road and pathway infrastructure to make active travel safe before it is encouraged. There are no cycle lanes in the proposed planning area and often only one footpath on one side of the road which are regularly overgrown and impassable with wheelchairs/prams. - public transport options along Kingsley Road are limited to one infrequent bus service. The itravel bus is an option but is regularly booked up during school/work commuting hours. This limitation results in residents relying on car use. - The train service to Manchester is already a very busy service at commuting times. Standing room only is not uncommon and this would only get worse and more unbearable by increasing the population in the town. Any busier, and I would certainly consider driving to Manchester as a more stress free option defeating the proposal to encourage more use of public transport and active travel. Strain on Infrastructure (GPs, schools, etc.) - Existing public services are overstretched. The GP surgery is already challenged with appointment demand. Most recently, I was advised to take my son to Halton Urgent Care due to there being no available appointments, consequently, putting additional strain on this urgent service. - The same son is due to start Reception this summer - in a class of 31 children. Research strongly shows that smaller class sizes reap significant benefits for children, particularly in early years. The proposed planning is in this local school's catchment area which will only add to the pressure for places forcing families to have to make journeys to schools further away. - Increasing the population will also increase the long waiting lists for existing community groups - Scouts/Cubs/Beavers, local swimming lessons and allotment allocations to name a few. Sewage & Flooding Risks - Historically there has been significant surface water flooding in Langdale Way; major interventions were needed in the past. The risk of increasing impermeable surfaces needs significant consideration in relation to putting properties, businesses and highways at increased risk of flooding. Harm to Biodiversity and Ancient Woodland (Hob Hey Wood) - Hob Hey is ancient woodland – irreplaceable habitat. Development could disrupt wildlife, habitats and ecosystems. Hob Hey is home to a number of wildlife species including bats and is thoroughly enjoyed as a green space by the local community. - the community allotments are also a wonderfully enjoyed green space by many members of the community, also attracting pollinators and other wildlife. In conclusion, I feel this proposal cannot go ahead. It will add significant pressure to an already failing infrastructure, implode our public services and will cause permanent damage to our Greenbelt habitats, biodiversity and community green spaces.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14109

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Stephanie Garner

I&O_14652
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: 14128

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emily Evans

I&O_14671
I am writing to object to policies SS41, SS42, and SS43. Building homes on the protected greenbelt next to Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham would have a significant negative impact on the community, for the following reasons:   Destruction of our ancient woodland, orchard and rare species with worse air quality, light & noise pollution, contamination, and predators like cats. •Destruction of vital wildlife corridors, cutting animals and insects off from food, mates, and safe migration routes. Loss of the woodland and fields to walk, and views that bring local residents peace. Hundreds more cars on our roads, leading to more potholes, congestion & danger. Even longer delays to get an appointment with a GP or dentist. Local children struggling to get into local schools.

Comment

Representation ID: 14168

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Conway

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_14712
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: 14169

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Ms S Cox

I&O_14713
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: 14177

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Elaine Scott

I&O_14721
I have lived in Alvanley for twenty five years and the local area for fifty five years. One of the main reasons I have chosen to stay here with my family is because of the green spaces available. I am writing to object to SS44, SS45, and SS46 for the planning of HEL01, HEL02, and HEL03. I would also like to object to SS41, SS42, and SS43 for the planning of FRO01, FRO02, and FRO03. My reasoning for this includes adding pressure to already strained infrastructure. Including access to schools, doctors, dentists. The risk of floods and improper infrastructure in place to drain this, particularly in Alvanley. There would also be negative impacts on wildlife with the destruction of natural habitats and increased light and air pollution. There is also the worry of dropping house prices to consider in an already uncertain economic time. Overall, the proposed planning on green belt land has a negative impact on residents physical and mental health as it would take away our green spaces.

Comment

Representation ID: 14241

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Judith Critchley

I&O_14785
None

Comment

Representation ID: 14273

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Tony Lovick

I&O_14817
I would like to say that I have never felt the need to write to the council to object over plans for building before. However, I feel so  strongly against these proposed plans  that I feel action is needed.   I am responding to questions SS41, SS42, SS43 on the consultation document.   These are the main reasons that I consider all three areas are unsuitable for Development;   Infrastructure   The existing roads are already struggling to cope with the traffic. The A56 is extremely busy at peak times, especially at school times and during the summer months on Fridays and Weekends. There is no way it could cope with the considerable extra traffic these developments would create. When there is an accident on the M56, which seems to be happening more frequently, the traffic is diverted through Helsby and Frodsham and the whole area becomes severely gridlocked.  The A56 passing by the proposed development opposite Castle Park is narrow and dangerous for bicycles. The road is used by school children cycling to and from Helsby High School, Also, the roads leading on to the A56 in Frodsham are not suitable for extra traffic. I live on the Lakes Estate in Frodsham (I really hope the Councillors responsible for making the decisions for the building of these houses are familiar with the area)  it looks as if this is where the access road would be (Langdale Way), along with Bradley Lane and Watery Lane, all too narrow and unsuitable for an increase in traffic.   There is already considerable strain on the doctors in Frodsham. it is difficult to get an appointment and almost impossible to get a Dentist appointment.    Extra schools would have to be built or existing ones extended, Again this will cause extra traffic.    Environment    The proposed developments are close to Hob Hey Wood which is Ancient Woodland. This area is vital for supporting birds, mammals, insects and fauna, these woodlands are irreplaceable and essential for supporting local wildlife and ecosystems in a part of the country that is rapidly losing its green space.  Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad Please consider these issues before making decisions that could have huge long term implications to this area.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14390

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Wheeler

I&O_14934
Objecting to Policies SS41 SS42 SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 14407

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Kevin Hayes

FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03
I&O_14951
Regarding planning proposals for the Frodsham area, we would like to voice our concerns and objections to the development of housing in the designated FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03 zones. Specifically the areas adjacent to the Lakes Estate area and the neighbouring Hob Hey Woods. • From the 3 zones suggested, FRO01 and FRO02 should not in any way be considered. These are green belt areas, for which we are the caretakers, and as such should be protected at all costs. They safeguard our countryside for future generations and wildlife. They are also required to protect us from flooding and as a means to reduce the effects of climate change. Therefore they should be protected from substantial development. Building in these areas would put too much strain on the local woodland and its wildlife, as well as the existing residents of the Lakes Estate area. • FRO03 is the more favourable location given its proximity to the existing main road providing better access and imposing less of a destructive presence on the local environment. However, we strongly object to all 3 zones proposed given the significant impact on the local area

Comment

Representation ID: 14510

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Marian Massey

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_15056
My comments are specifically connected to the development of land on the Eastern side of Frodsham (areas FRO01 and FRO02 in your document) and to questions SS41, SS42 and SS43. NPPF: Does not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 137–140 states that Green Belt land should only be developed in “exceptional circumstances.” Traffic: Without road improvements, Frodsham, already subject to severe congestion (especially during M56 problems), could be gridlocked often, increasing pollution levels. Emergency vehicles would struggle, putting lives at risk. Existing roads appear unsuitable to cope with construction traffic. Inadequate infrastructure: Services such as GPs, dentists, schools and social services are already stretched. Any increase in population without increased services would strain the services further. Sewage systems: Overpopulation intensifies surface drain issues in residential areas due to increased impermeable surfaces, overwhelming existing drainage systems and leading to flooding. The conversion of natural, permeable surfaces (e.g. fields), to concrete/tarmac, reduces rainwater absorption, causing more runoff and increased risk of surface water flooding. This occurs when drainage systems can't handle the volume of water, causing it to accumulate on the surface and potentially enter properties. Surface water runoff can carry pollutants into water bodies, impacting water quality and harming wildlife. 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 yearlong 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. Potential impact on property values: If development results in the problems listed above, it could impact residents’ property values. Impact on nature particularly Hob Hey Wood: Hob Hey is ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat which is being reduced every year. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Many species only occur in ancient woodland (so become rarer with each lost ancient wood). The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature (which are significant and scientifically proven). Building next to the wood could have catastrophic effects: Destruction of wildlife corridors. Wildlife relies on such routes (e.g. hedgerows) to move between areas. If destroyed (say, by a housing development) the wildlife becomes trapped and could decline. Hedgerows are themselves invaluable wildlife sites for nesting birds and animals and support myriad insect species. Pollution: A large number of houses could result in pollution, affecting the delicate balance of the woodland. Light pollution: Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats (seven species present including rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle). Moths are also affected by light pollution. Disturbance: Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. Pets could also be an issue. Cats are supreme predators which could impact the wildlife. Dogs could also disturb wildlife and their faeces, if not picked up, have a detrimental effect on the wood. ASB. Potential for vandalism, fires, litter. Flooding. Converting ‘porous’ fields into tarmac and concrete-covered land would increase runoff during heavy rainfall. Flooding of the woodland could result in severe damage including trees falling due to the soil around their roots being eroded. Summary: Housebuilding on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) would have serious detrimental effects for the town, its residents, and nature (specifically Hob Hey Wood). I do not believe that house building on FRO01 and FRO02 is a suitable solution for the demand for more houses and other areas should be chosen instead.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14707

Received: 07/09/2025

Respondent: Steve Westhead

I&O_15257
I am writing to object to the following planning policies on your website:   SS41   The protection of Hob Hey Wood is important to our town both in environmental, well-being and logistical terms.   Already, Frodsham is effectively at capacity on its roads and with its facilities.  For example, the town frequently sees queues in rush hour on all major arterial routes and this becomes a gridlock whenever the M56 has even minor problems or queues.  Areas of the town are in effect "landlocked" and this is true of the Lakes Estate near Hob Hey Wood.  The town itself has a single-point-of-failure risk in the swing bridge access route.   Hob Hey Wood is also a green area used by local people and to erode it denies important recreational and natural space and also natural land to absorb rainfall.  We see the centre of Frodsham flooded in what I would call "manageable" levels when there is significant downpour but adding more houses will increase "run off".  (Until remedial work some 10-12 years ago the bottom of the Lakes Estate flooded regularly.)   Finally, GP and dentist facilities are already incredibly challenging for existing residents let alone new ones.  As far as I am aware, primary schools are close to full as well.   Only recently, planned repair work on the Swing Bridge had to be postponed as it was clear that the town could not weather the impact of its closure.  (There should have been a plan to have an addition of a bailey bridge that was used many years ago for similar repairs.)  The idea that we can add hundreds of new houses in the Hob Hey Wood area presents a serious existential threat to the success of Frodsham as a town.   I understand that development is important but only when it comes with viable and significant investment in infrastructure, the kind of which I do not see mooted in these plans.  

Comment

Representation ID: 14713

Received: 09/09/2025

Respondent: C McCurdy

I&O_15263
I  object to your policy SS41

Comment

Representation ID: 14717

Received: 09/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs L McCurdy

I&O_15267
I would like to pass to you my objections to your planning policy no SS41

Comment

Representation ID: 15117

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: StanleyRed Developments Ltd

Agent: AshtonHale

I&O_15676
The three potential growth areas identified in Map 5.10 all fall outside of Frodsham’s adopted settlement boundaries, within the Green Belt. Out of the three areas identified, FR003 appears to be the most suitable location for growth due to its advantageous location away from Tree Preservation Orders, SSSI’s, ancient woodland, or impact on conservation area views as the land at FR001 and FR002 are. It is StanleyRed’s view that the Council should seek to expand the growth location of FR003 or pursue a new growth location to include the strip of land south of the M56 to include Land at Saltworks Farm, providing a logical expansion and defensible boundary to Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 15486

Received: 21/10/2025

Respondent: Wirral Borough Council

I&O_16045
No comments at this stage

Comment

Representation ID: 15862

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Barratt David Wilson Homes North West

Agent: Turley

I&O_16421
BDW consider that growth option FRO03 is the most suitable, as demonstrated throughout these representations. The area is located adjacent to the existing settlement of Frodsham, and benefits from existing natural boundaries including the A56 Chester Road to the east, the railway line to the north, and residential development to the south. The Site is sustainably located to make best use of existing sustainable transport provision; and is located within proximity to a number of facilities and services, which are accessible via a number of sustainable non-car modes including walking and cycling. The existing public transport provides a wide range of connections to key locations such as Manchester, Liverpool and is of high frequency. The planning application for Dig Lane is supported by a range of technical assessments, which confirm that the Site is a suitable location for housing development. In particular, and as noted above, the submitted Green and Grey Belt Appraisal confirms that the Site meets the definition of grey belt, and that the Proposed Development meets the criterion in paragraph 155 of the NPPF and can be regarded as appropriate development. The application also confirms that the Proposed Development will follow the Golden Rules in accordance with paragraph 151 of the NPPF, which states: “where Green Belt land is released for development through plan preparation or review, the ‘Golden Rules’ in paragraph 156 should apply.” The application demonstrates that the Proposed Development is underpinned by a high-quality approach to design, layout and landscape which respects and responds to the evidenced Site constraints and the wider environment. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Request (LPA ref. 25/02187/SCR), which includes a detailed appraisal of the construction and operational stage effects associated with the Proposed Development, and confirms that no likely significant effects have been identified. BDW encourages the Council to consider the submitted application materials as part of the process for selecting growth locations and residential allocations within the emerging Local Plan. The work undertaken to date clearly demonstrates that the Site is both suitable and sustainable for development.