Comment

Representation ID: 1696

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Marg Halliwell

I&O_1806
FRO01 amd FRO02 - I would like my rejection to this proposed planning noted. Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable? Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are  completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 1738

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Eleanor Gorsuch

I&O_1848
Choose OPTION A. How can you possibly consider the area around Hob Hey Woods as suitable for development? FRO01 and FRO2. This is a hugely important historic area of ancient woodland and diverse habitat, and home to  significant wildlife corridors.. You have a responsibilty to protect this area for future generations.

Comment

Representation ID: 1754

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul George

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_1864
Please accept this email as a direct objection to the planning development at Hob Hey Wood Frodsham (plans SS41/SS42 & SS43). Due to concerns at the nature of the planned development namely new house builds and the negative impact it will have on ancient woodland and green belt zone. Whilst I acknowledge the need for new houses to be built, I firmly believe that brown sites should be explored and exhausted in the first instance. The unquantifiable damage to the environment and wildlife in addition to the historic woodland being destroyed forever I urge you to reject this planning application. If you as a council genuinely care for and are concerned about protecting vital spaces then you will act accordingly. Failure to reject this development will constitute a negligent and damaging attitude towards the area both in terms of greenbelt/wildlife and existing residents. I would like you to acknowledge this email by responding to this email address to confirm receipt. I sincerely hope that you take this view into account and think long and hard about the longer term impact rather than hiding behind superficial potential benefits.  Do not fall for the commerciality of new house builds (increased council tax etc) and think about the existing beauty of this area, you owe it to all Frodsham residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 1757

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Dianne Lightfoot

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_1867
Good afternoon I write to object to Policies SS41 SS42 SS43 which affect Hob Hey Wood Frodsham  I believe the proposed developments are a threat to wildlife and irreplaceable ancient woodland. Green spaces are also important for community and health . The local infrastructure ie demand for health and social care, education, roads, water supply etc is already stretched beyond reasonable capacity at times. Please withdraw FRO01 and FRO02 before one of Cheshires best small towns is ruined. Thank You

Comment

Representation ID: 1842

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: mary pownall

I&O_1952
Option A

Comment

Representation ID: 1865

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Tim Roberts

FRO01,FRO02,FRO03
I&O_1977
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: 1868

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul George

SS41/SS42 /SS43
I&O_1980
I reject/oppose the panned development at frodsham ss41/ss42/ss43

Comment

Representation ID: 1939

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Barnard

SS41 FR001/FR002
I&O_2051
FR001 and FR002 seem to be very unsuitable.   Both areas are green belt sites.  According to the National Planning Policy Framework, development on green belt land is inappropriate unless there are exceptional circumstances, which is not demonstrated here. Infrastructure is already overloaded in terms of transport, health care, education ... The areas surround Hob Hey Wood, an ancient woodland and Site of Biological Interest.  The surrounding areas provide wildlife corridors and buffer zones which are crucial to local biodiversity.  To build in area FR001 and FR002 would disrupt the ecosystem. It is essential to presserve these areas especially during our national emergency of climate change. construction work would cause pollution in the area which would damage this very special area. Building in these two areas would increase the risk of flooding.  There are many natural streams leading to the river in these areas. There are a number of unique archaeological sites in the erea, Bradley Medieval Field as an example.  There is evidence of Anglosaxon Hillforts and Roman camps in the area, which should be preserved and not destroyed. Loss of green spaces will contribute to a deterioration in public well being and health, which contradicts the NPPF aims. The council must uphold its statutary duty to protect green belt land wherever possible.   FR003 is possibly a better option, provided it is a small development and access is possible.  However many of the above arguments will apply to this site too.   There are several areas in Frodsham where infill would be possible, which would not detract from the nature of the town.    

Comment

Representation ID: 1946

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andy Jones

I&O_2058
Subject: Objection to Development Proposals SS41, SS42, and SS43 I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocations SS41, SS42, and SS43 as part of the Frodsham Local Plan consultation. These proposals raise significant concerns for me. In particular: The proposed developments would place undue pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and medical services. It is already difficult to arrange GP appointments and there is pressure on school places in the area. Traffic in Frodsham is frequently gridlocked in particular Thursday to Saturdays, made worse by the councils refusal to install traffic lights at the junction of Fluin Lane and the A56.  Whilst Frodsham has a railway station it is poorly served. TfW provide an hourly service to Liverpool and Manchester, the Manchester service is frequently over crowded with passengers having to stand to Manchester, the Northern Service between Chester and Leeds does not even stop outside peak hours. The sites in question lie within or near greenbelt land and would result in the loss of important green space and biodiversity. Hob Hey wood is a valued local amenity with importance for wildlife and this development would be very detrimental to this special environment.  There are brownfield sites that could be developed, in particular off the A56 at Sutton Quays. The scale and density of the development are not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. There would be a large change in the character of our market town.  Flooding in this area from the many streams and waterways would probably become more of an issue with this number of properties on our precious greenbelt. These developments would not only harm the environment but would also undermine the quality of life for current and future residents. I urge the council to reconsider the inclusion of SS41, SS42, and SS43 and seek more sustainable and appropriate alternatives.  Please register this letter as a formal objection to these site proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 1961

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Crocker

I&O_2076
FRO03 is the most suitable (or at least worst identified option) for Frodsham. It has easy walking access to the facilities of Frodsham including shopping, transport, health and sports centre and will prevent further traffic congestion that will be caused by building further away on FRO02 and FRO01. Brownfield sites must always be used as first priority over Greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 1967

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: James Mcdonagh

Map 5.10 question SS 41
I&O_2082
FR003 is the most suitable as a new planned direct access to the main A56 and M56 could be provided. The traffic is routinely gridlocked through Frodsham, hence along with housing a service provision question needs to be asked in unison. The facilities including schools, doctors, denists open wild spaces and transport links need to be suitable for the volume they will receive from increased population. Without these alongside housing increases these proposals will lead to medium term problems which will adversely affect existing and new residents,

Comment

Representation ID: 2005

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: David Halliwell

SS 41
I&O_2121
Question SS 41 Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable? Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are  completely unsuitable . Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is a terrible idea. It adds pressure to failing infrastructure. It increases flood risk. It destroys wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Hayes (the other side of the B5152) would also be suitable. Huge area which adjoins the B5152 for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. Although it is about two miles from Frodsham Train Station, using the iTravel bus this journey could be completed in just a few minutes allowing residents to use the train if they can/wish to do so.

Comment

Representation ID: 2046

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jane and Eric Bennett

I&O_2166
Of the 3 areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are c ompletely unsuitable.  Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is an absolutely terrible idea. It has 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.

Comment

Representation ID: 2105

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Steen

I&O_2225
Comments to Proposed Developments of FO01, FO02 and FO03. There is a contradiction in the document.  In the ‘Key Issues’ is states, “Green spaces are highly valued and should be protected, along with recreation, leisure and community uses.” but in FR1 is states “Set out the level and location of new development in and around the town – depending on the final potential growth option (see SS 5 'Spatial strategy options'), this may require the release of Green Belt land” and allocating sites FRO/0010, FRO/0038, FRO/0039, S/01, S/07, S/10 for development which are Green Belt and farming land.  Option A protects the Green Belt and this should be the priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 2190

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Crocker

I&O_2310
FRO03 is the most suitable (or the least worst option) for Frodsham. It has easy walking access to the facilities of Frodsham including shopping, transport, health and sports centre and will prevent further traffic congestion that will be caused by building further away on FRO02 and FRO01. Brownfield sites must always be used as first priority over Greenbelt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2244

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Naomi Anstice

SS 41
I&O_2364
FRO01 and FRO02 are unsuitable and is a very poor suggestion from the planners. I'm not sure if they have visited the area but the issues here are very evident. I have lived on the Lakes Estate for 10 years and worked on Langdale Way for the last 26 years. This whole estate becomes gridlocked on a regular basis whenever their are issues with the M56, snow / ice and flooding. Many cars have to be abandoned when these issues happen and adding more vehicles would be a nightmare. I am a regular walker to Hob Hey Woods which is an area which needs protection with a wildlife corridot, access to this area often floods during the Winter as well. FRO03 would be the better option as at least there is access to a main road. What would be a better option would be near Lady Hayes on the B5152 where local schools also have spaces. 

Comment

Representation ID: 2267

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Barry Kenworthy

FRO03
I&O_2390
Better acces, already has main road passing through. Also better local school service.  Would not neeed to pass through existing 20MPH areas.

Comment

Representation ID: 2291

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Jamie Hargrove

I&O_2420
I have recently been informed of your potential planning policies - specifically SS41, SS42 and SS43. As a local resident I am writing to inform you that I object to these policies. My objection is based upon, but no limited to the following points:- Increased Flood Risk More Gridlock on Frodsham Roads - The roads are already heavily congested as it is and in a really poor state. Further traffic would be even more detrimental to the roads. Strain on GPs, Dentists, and Schools - It is extremely hard work getting a doctors appointment as it stands. Schools are relatively full too. Destruction of Wildlife Corridors Damage to Ancient Woodland Worse Air Quality & Light Pollution Falling House Prices Loss of Community and Green Space  I have been advised to email yourselves regarding this objection.

Comment

Representation ID: 2294

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Janet McDonagh

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_2423
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: 2297

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Lynn Howarth

I&O_2426
We wish to record our objections to policies, SS41,SS42,SS43. The proposed plans will cause massive strain on already stretched GP and dental services , plus schools. Current road access and infrastructure is already badly compromised and there is frequent gridlock in Frodsham when problems occur on the motorways or at the swing bridge. This impacts severely on the emergency services access  and on the health of Frodsham residents. Increased flood risk is also a major factor.

Comment

Representation ID: 2383

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Joanne O'Neill

I&O_2512
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed building of new homes on Green Belt land at Hob Hey Wood. I am objecting to policies SS41  SS42  SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 2386

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Leatherbarrow

I&O_2515
I am writing to express my objection to the proposed building of new homes on Green Belt land at Hob Hey Wood. I am objecting to policies SS41  SS42  SS43.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2493

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Shirley Jones

I&O_2645
Subject: Objection to Development Proposals SS41, SS42, and SS43 I am writing to formally object to the proposed site allocations SS41, SS42, and SS43 as part of the Local Plan consultation. These proposals raise significant concerns for me and many others in the local community. In particular:   The proposed developments would place undue pressure on already stretched local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and medical services. It is already difficult to arrange GP appointments and there is pressure on school places in the area. The sites in question lie within or near greenbelt land and would result in the loss of important green space and biodiversity. Hob Hey wood is a valued local amenity with importance for wildlife and this development would be very detrimental to this special environment.  The scale and density of the development are not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. There would be a large change in the character of our market town and it would probably devalue house prices.  Flooding in this area from the many streams and waterways would probably become more of an issue with this number of properties on our precious greenbelt. These developments would not only harm the environment but would also undermine the quality of life for current and future residents. I urge the council to reconsider the inclusion of SS41, SS42, and SS43 and seek more sustainable and appropriate alternatives.  Please register this letter as a formal objection to these site proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 2540

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Jan Carberry

I&O_2693
I am writing to lodge a formal and unequivocal objection to the proposed development on Greenbelt land parcels FR001 and FR002, adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. This is not a suggestion or a concern—it is a resolute opposition to a plan that threatens the integrity of Frodsham’s last remaining rural buffer. Traffic Impact: Frodsham’s traffic infrastructure is already under severe strain. The A56 and surrounding roads are frequently gridlocked, particularly during M56 closures. The Weaver Viaduct handles over 112,000 vehicles daily, with numbers surging during incidents. Introducing hundreds of additional vehicles will compound congestion, delay emergency services, and endanger lives. Environmental Destruction: Hob Hey Wood is a designated Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, supporting thousands of species, including rare and endangered wildlife. It is a vital ecological and community asset. Development on FR001 and FR002 would obliterate wildlife corridors and irreparably damage this fragile ecosystem. Flood Risk: Surface water flooding is a growing threat, and Hob Hey Wood plays a critical role in flood mitigation. Its natural absorption capacity slows rainfall and protects homes. Removing this green infrastructure will accelerate runoff, overwhelm drainage systems, and increase flood risk—contrary to the council’s own Flood Risk Assessment. Strained Infrastructure: Frodsham’s public services are already stretched to breaking point. GP surgeries and schools are at capacity, and this proposal offers no credible plan or funding for additional services. The burden will fall on existing systems, further eroding service quality and accessibility. Air and Light Pollution: Frodsham lies within an Air Quality Management Area. Additional traffic will worsen pollution levels, while artificial lighting from the development will disrupt nocturnal wildlife and negatively impact residents’ health and wellbeing. Community Fragmentation: This development isolates new housing on the town’s periphery, undermining social cohesion and increasing the risk of antisocial behaviour. It fails to meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s requirement for integrated, community-supportive growth. Economic Harm: Residents choose Frodsham for its natural beauty and rural character. This development erodes those qualities, devalues property, and shifts the cost of environmental and social degradation onto the community—while developers profit. Greenbelt Protection: The Greenbelt is not a loophole—it is a legal and environmental safeguard. National policy is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless no alternatives exist. In this case, alternatives do exist, and this land must remain protected. Conclusion: This proposal represents reckless planning that threatens lives, ecosystems, infrastructure, and community wellbeing. It prioritises short-term profit over long-term sustainability and public interest. I urge the council to reject this development in its entirety.  

Comment

Representation ID: 2549

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Marianne McLellan

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_2702
Why no option to retain the Green Belt? Is the case proved that Frodsham needs anything like the number of houses proposed? Many of the proposals are in direct contradiction to the Vision for Frodsham outlined in FR1 i.e. protecting green spaces, managing impact on habitat sites, retaining viability of retail centre (traffic !) FR001 and FR002 are completely unsuitable for development. Infrastructure will not support any development. Flood risk will be significantly increased (surface water). Wildlife corridors and habitats will be destroyed forever (Hob Hey Wood).

Comment

Representation ID: 2583

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Imogen Sykes

I&O_2736
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 and access to outdoor areas that we are deeply proud of. It worsens air quality. It lowers property values. It puts lives at risk. It benefits only 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: 2696

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: David Molyneaux

I&O_2849
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 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. Neither is FRO03. This would cover a large area of greenbelt and greenfield land and create a huge conurbation not fit for the services and infrastructure presently in place Yes, don’t build on FRO01 and FRO02. This is not a polite suggestion. It 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. Objections in detail 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/.../dog-pee-and-poo-harming... 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 i Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e Also don't build on FRO03. This would create a huge conurbation between Frodsham and Helsby. As above, the infrastructure and services are unsuitable, and there are no proposals for further services or road infrastructure planned.

Comment

Representation ID: 2724

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Birtles

I&O_2881
None of them given the road infrastructure and a lack of local employment

Comment

Representation ID: 2739

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: helen hayes

5.1 - SS41 (FR001 and FR002)
I&O_2905
1. This Development Must Not Go Ahead This is not a polite suggestion. It 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. 2. 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) 3. 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/). 4. 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://nsipdocuments.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/published-documents/EN010153-000069- 6.1_ES%20Vol%201%20Chapter%207%20Terrestrial%20Ecology.pdf 5. 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-harmingnature-reserves-study 6. 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-andtravel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc4a3ea446504e 7. 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/localplan/authority-monitoring-report 8. 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/pollutionand-air-quality/air-quality-review-and-assessment/action-plans/action-plan-frodsham0118.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). 9. 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-planningpolicy-framework--2 10. House Prices Will Drop People buy in Frodsham for access to open countryside, peace, and green views. Strip those away, and the value drops. This development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth. Homeowners who’ve invested in the area will be hit with lower resale values and a loss of the rural edge they were sold on. Developers walk away with profit. Residents are left picking up the cost. 11. 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-beltland 12. 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. Nothing else will do.

Comment

Representation ID: 2785

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Cooke

I&O_2955
Hob Hey wood and surrounding area should be protected for wildlife and residents wellbeing as a place of green space and a valued amenity