Comment

Representation ID: 2884

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: David Miles

I&O_3057
Question SS41 - FRO01, FRO02, FRO03 I do not think any of these sites are suitable for development, as they form part of the greenbelt surrounding Frodsham, which gives the village its character and attracts people to rellocate here. There are a number of brown field sites in Frodsham which could be used to increase the housing stock in Frodsham, such as next to the leisure centre of the industrial area on Fountains Lane. As well as this there are a number of vacant commercial properties which could be converted into domestic accomodation. This has already been done with several churches, the Cheshire Cheese, Old Hall hotel and the old Library building. These developments have increased the housing stock without destroying the character of the buildings, or the need to build on green belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 2964

Received: 15/08/2025

Respondent: Allison Adamson

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_3138
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of housing on Green Belt land adjacent to Hob Hey Wood (Sites FR001 and FR002), as outlined in policies SS41, SS42, and SS43. My grounds for objection are as follows: Loss of Green Belt Land and Countryside Character This site forms a vital part of the rural buffer around Frodsham. Building here would permanently remove open countryside, erode the distinct character of the area, and contradict national and local Green Belt policy, which prioritises the protection of such land. Impact on Biodiversity and Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood is an important local wildlife site, providing habitat for many protected and priority species. Development would destroy or fragment wildlife corridors, reduce biodiversity, and risk irreversible damage to ancient woodland — which should be safeguarded under planning law. Flood Risk and Environmental Impact The proposed site is susceptible to flooding, and replacing green space with hard surfaces will increase surface water run-off. This will worsen local flood risk and place additional strain on existing drainage systems. Traffic and Highway Safety Frodsham’s road network is already heavily congested, especially at peak times. Adding hundreds of additional vehicle movements daily will worsen gridlock, increase journey times, and heighten road safety risks for pedestrians and cyclists. Pressure on Local Infrastructure and Services GP surgeries, dentists, and local schools are already operating at or above capacity. This development would put further pressure on services, reducing accessibility for existing residents and impacting quality of care and education. Air Quality, Noise, and Light Pollution Increased traffic will worsen local air quality, while additional lighting will cause light pollution, harming both residents’ quality of life and nocturnal wildlife. Negative Economic and Social Impacts Overdevelopment of this scale risks reducing the appeal of Frodsham as a place to live, potentially lowering local property values and undermining community cohesion. For these reasons, I urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reject policies SS41, SS42, SS43 and the associated housing allocations FR001 and FR002. The protection of Hob Hey Wood, our wildlife, and our Green Belt is essential for the long-term environmental, social, and economic well-being of the area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2968

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Duncan McLellan

I&O_3142
In summary 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). See detailed comments to Question SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 2973

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Marshall

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3147
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: 3004

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare McIlraith

FRO03, HEL01
I&O_3178
NONE OF THESE GROWTH AREAS ARE SUITABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL GREEN BELT AREAS. I voted to accept the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan which included identified sites within the town borders to meet the housing need of 250 homes by 2030. None of these sites are on Green Belt land. The referendum of local residents voted in favour of the plan and it was adopted just last year. Quotes from the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan: (https://frodsham.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/FNP-Referendum-version-comp.pdf) “An independent external report (Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (September 2023)) indicates that FRODSHAM HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MEET THIS HOUSING TARGET UP TO 2030 WITHOUT THE NEED TO BUILD ON GREENBELT LAND , in line with the community's wishes.” “This is in line with Policy STRAT 9 of the Local Plan (part One) that states that the general extent of the North Cheshire Green Belt will be maintained. “In order to meet future development needs to 2030 and to promote sustainable patterns of development, IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF CHESTER ARE THERE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO AMEND THE GREEN BELT .” The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) only allows Green Belt development in exceptional circumstances and, according to the Local Plan (Part One) of Cheshire West and Chester Council, this only applies to Chester – not Frodsham or Helsby. In addition, the area FR03 on Map 5.10 (Frodsham Growth Options) in conjunction with the area HEL01 on Map 5.11 (Helsby Growth Options) connect all the Green Belt land between Frodsham and Helsby. Development on both of these sites would mean the two towns would merge into one another, becoming an urban sprawl, destroying the appearance, setting and character of both Frodsham and Helsby and the Frodsham Hill and Helsby Hill Areas of Special County Value (ASCV). This is in direct contravention to the NPPF (section 13, paragraph 143) and a key reason for maintaining the Green Belt. The countryside must be safeguarded from encroachment, brownfield sites must be prioritised for development before any Green Belt land is lost. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open: THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GREEN BELTS ARE THEIR OPENNESS AND THEIR PERMANENCE . (NPPF section 13, paragraph 142).

Comment

Representation ID: 3036

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: G.K & L.J Hemsley

FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3210
SS41: Answer FRO03 We believe it would be a criminal destruction of the environment to build houses on FRO02 Green Belt.  

Comment

Representation ID: 3056

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mr D M Holden

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3230
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: 3062

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs C L Holden

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3236
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: 3155

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Parker

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3329
None of three areas identified, FRO01 FRO02 or FR003 would be suitable.  All sites would add considerable pressure to the current infrastructure with increased flood risk.  Not to mention the destruction of wildlife, the resultant poor air quality and the inevitable lowering of property prices.  It is only the developers who would gain from this, with nothing to the advantage of the local population.

Comment

Representation ID: 3159

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Richards

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3333
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 is an outrageous 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. Green Belt protection should be a major consideration in planning. This proposal conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 137-140. FRO03 is the best (meaning least worst) identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion and sufficient infrastructure is planned in conjunction albeit that this area is now infill between Frodsham itself and the recent development on Hatley Lane. But potentially it also destroys an important historical site being in close proximity to Castle Park and its place in history. However, I feel that the land to the south of Lady Heyes (the other side of the B5152) could be considered, though this also destroys green belt and becomes another infill connecting Frodsham to Kingsley village.  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: 3414

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Kevin Ball

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3588
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: 3464

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Pauline Wellbelove

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_3638
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: 3584

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Weatherup

I&O_3763
Of the three proposed development areas, FRO01 and FRO02 are entirely unsuitable for consideration. Their inclusion in the proposal is deeply concerning for several reasons: Infrastructure Stress: These sites would place additional pressure on infrastructure that is already under significant strain, exacerbating existing issues rather than resolving them. Flood Risk: Development in these areas would increase the likelihood of flooding, posing a serious threat to both property and public safety.  The close proximity of the development to the Flood zone 3 (Map 10.1 Frodsham settlement area and key constraints & referenced on drg 'Flood Zones - Vayle Royal BC Frodsham' [Sept 2007], suggests that the latest consideration for climate change and its impact on flood zones (SFRA - last recorded was March 2016) has not been considered in the proposal. Climate change is recognised  globally  The additional flood defences required for the protection of the development, additional construction costs for land stabilisation, would make the properties more expensive to construct and thus these cost would become part of the selling price of the housing and potentially not make them sit outside  'affordable housing determination for the area. The last SFRA undertaken was in March 2016 and will not have included the latest information on areas effected by this phenomena's impacts  Environmental Impact: The destruction of established wildlife corridors would have a detrimental effect on local biodiversity and ecological balance. Air Quality: Increased traffic and construction activity would contribute to worsening air quality, with negative implications for public health. Property Values: The adverse environmental and infrastructural consequences are likely to reduce property values in surrounding areas. Public Safety: The cumulative impact of these issues places lives at risk, particularly in the event of flooding or emergency access failures. Community vs. Developer Interests: These proposals appear to prioritize developer profits over the well-being of local communities. This approach is neither sustainable nor socially responsible. In contrast, FRO03 emerges as the most viable—albeit still imperfect—option, provided that: The scale of development is carefully controlled to match local capacity. Traffic access is designed to avoid congestion and ensure smooth flow into and out of the site.   I would suggest considering the land located south of Lady Hayes, on the opposite side of the B5152, as a potentially viable alternative site. This area offers several advantages: Size and Accessibility: It is a large tract of land with direct access to the B5152, facilitating convenient travel to both Frodsham and Kingsley. Public Transport Connectivity: Although approximately two miles from Frodsham Train Station, the availability of the iTravel bus service makes this a practical location for residents who wish to use rail transport. The journey can be completed in just a few minutes, supporting sustainable travel options.   In summary, FRO01 and FRO02 should be removed from consideration due to their significant and multifaceted risks. FRO03, while not ideal, is the least damaging of the proposed sites. The land south of Lady Hayes warrants further investigation as a potentially more suitable and sustainable alternative.

Comment

Representation ID: 3587

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Roberts

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_3769
Formal Objection to Development of FRO01 and FRO02 (Chester Road, Frodsham) To: Planning Department, Cheshire West & Chester Council Subject: Objection – Barratt Homes Proposal at Chester Road (Sites FRO01/FRO02), Frodsham This Development Must Not Go Ahead This objection is made firmly and unequivocally. Development of FRO01 and FRO02 must be refused. These parcels of land are Green Belt , they border Hob Hey Wood (a Site of Biological Importance and ancient woodland) , and they provide Frodsham’s last remaining rural buffer . The proposal: Increases flood risk ; Overloads already-congested roads ; Strains local health and education services ; Destroys wildlife habitats and corridors ; Harms a heritage landscape ; and Breaches both local and national planning policy . Conflict with Planning Policy (Neighbourhood Plan, Green Belt, NPPF) The Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan , made in November 2024 following a referendum (79.4% support), forms part of the statutory development plan. Neither FRO01 nor FRO02 are allocated for housing. To approve this proposal would undermine the legitimacy of local democracy and the statutory plan-led system. Both sites lie within the Green Belt . NPPF (Section 13) is clear: development on Green Belt should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances , where no reasonable alternatives exist. That test has not been met here. National Green Belt guidance also stresses prevention of urban sprawl and protection of openness . This development directly conflicts with those aims. Traffic and Highway Safety The A56 and Frodsham’s local roads are already gridlocked , particularly when the M56 is closed. Hansard records >112,000 vehicles daily using the Weaver Viaduct, with traffic diverted through Frodsham during incidents. Adding hundreds of additional car journeys would worsen congestion, delay emergency vehicles, and increase road safety risks. The local access roads near the site are narrow and unsuitable for large construction vehicles or sustained additional traffic. Severe Impact on Hob Hey Wood (Ancient Woodland & Site of Biological Importance) Hob Hey Wood is an Ancient Woodland and formally designated as a Site of Biological Importance (SBI) . Both categories carry strong protections under planning law and policy. Over 800 species have been recorded here, including nationally rare ones. Ancient woodland is irreplaceable; once damaged it cannot be recreated. Wildlife corridors link Hob Hey to wider landscapes through FRO01/02. Development here would sever those ecological connections permanently , causing habitat fragmentation and species decline. Disturbance from pets (cats and dogs), lighting, and human activity would further degrade the woodland. Peer-reviewed studies show dog waste alters woodland soils and light pollution harms bats and moths . Hob Hey is home to at least seven bat species , including the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Flood Risk Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding fields function as a natural sponge , slowing rainwater and reducing flood peaks. Development will increase surface run-off, overloading drainage systems. Frodsham has a proven history of surface water flooding —most notably on Langdale Way (1990s–2005), which required major United Utilities intervention. Building adjacent to Hob Hey risks re-triggering such problems . Cheshire West’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment advises against development that removes natural flood defences. This scheme ignores that guidance. Strain on Local Services GP surgeries and schools in Frodsham are already near or at capacity. The development makes no provision for new services . This directly contradicts the principle of sustainable development , which requires adequate infrastructure to support growth. Air Quality and Light Pollution Frodsham lies within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) . Traffic from 90 new homes will worsen an already serious problem, conflicting with the council’s AQMA Action Plan. Light pollution from homes and streetlighting will damage nocturnal ecosystems, harming bats and moths that are integral to Hob Hey’s biodiversity. Heritage Setting – Castle Park House Castle Park House and Gardens (Grade II Listed) lie nearby. Development would compromise their setting, tranquillity, and historic character, contrary to national heritage protections. Social Fragmentation and Poor Design The estate would be isolated at the town’s edge, poorly integrated into the wider settlement. The NPPF requires developments to support community cohesion ; this proposal does the opposite, risking social fragmentation and under-policing. Economic Harm to Existing Residents Frodsham’s property values are underpinned by access to open countryside and rural character . Development strips these away, reducing local amenity and property values for existing residents while delivering profits only for the developer. Precedent for Green Belt Erosion Approval would set a dangerous precedent for further erosion of Green Belt across Cheshire West. Once the barrier is breached, other protected sites will be under pressure. Final Statement – Reject This Now This application is contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan, breaches Green Belt policy, threatens irreplaceable ancient woodland and a Site of Biological Importance, increases flood risk, worsens traffic congestion, overloads services, harms heritage assets, and reduces quality of life for existing residents. It is bad planning, unsustainable, unjustified, and unacceptable . FRO01 and FRO02 must be removed from all development consideration and this application rejected in full.  

Comment

Representation ID: 3591

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Erica Partridge

I&O_3773
FRO03 is the most logical extension to Frodsham's urban area.  It already has an urban character, sandwiched between the A56, railway line and M56, it is flat and so straight forward to develop and is accessible. New homes in this location would have direct access onto the A56, which also has a designated cycleway and wide footpath and would be accessible on foot to either Helsby or Frodsham train stations, as well as many local schools. FRO02 is the second tier option.  This projects into the countryside which has an open rural character but could round off the eastern urban edge of the Town and is relatively accessible to services.   FRO03 however, is an inappropriate extension to Frodsham.  Large scale development beyond Bradley Lane would make a significant projection into the open countryside and the separation between Frodsham and Kingsley.  It would therefore have a significant impact on the purposes of the Green Belt and the Green Belt as a whole in this area. Large scale development in this area would also have a negative impact on the setting of the Frodsham and Helsby Hill ASCV, which is protected through policy FR01 of this draft Plan. It therefore represents an illogical extension to Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 3606

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Deryn O'Connor

I&O_3788
FR3 is the most suitable

Comment

Representation ID: 3921

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Birtles

I&O_4103
SS41 I do not support any of the proposed development areas. FRO01, FRO02 erode greenbelt beside an ancient woodland. Access points to the land are already restricted (Townfield land is effectively a single track road since cars park along its entire length, Langdale Way exits to Fluin Lane (B5394) approximately 100m from it's junction with the A56, both junctions are congested on a regular basis). Langdale Way is part of a development of c400 homes from the latter half of the 20th century. Either FRO01 or FRO02 increases homes (and traffic) by 2.5 times, permitting both would take to that to over 4 fold. In short local infrastructure is already at capacity and would not support this development. Furthermore, both FRO01 and FRO02 are on the upper reaches of the Weaver Valley. The land beneath the development area (Frodsham Bridge area), is identified as flood risk. Development on this land will inevitably increase surface water run off, increasing fllod risk - which could close the main access point to Frodsham. Drainage  issues, causing flooding into the 1990s, were retrospectively tackled after the Langdale Way development was completed - the same risk exists with FRO01 and FRO02. It should be noted that Frodsham is a road bottleneck, constrained from the east by the Sutton Weaver swing bridge and the grade 2 listed Frodsham Bridge, and to the West by the A56 railway bridge. With the closure of the high school in the early 2000s, the closest secondary school is in Helsby (not walkable daily from FRO01, FRO02). The town is served well with restaurants and bars, but other leisure facilities are limited. Multiple footpaths cross the greenbelt (FRO01, FRO02) and are well used by dog walkers, ramblers and leisure walkers; loss of these facilities will undoubtdly impact mental health (remember Covid !!!). The town does have a health centre, but based on the area served and difficulty in securing appointments, a 30+% population growth in the town could not be supported. In short, whilst I acknowledge the need for increased housing, without significant infrastructure and public service improvements, I fail to see how Frodsham can support more than infill and brownfield site development

Comment

Representation ID: 3953

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Carol MacFadyen

Question SS41
I&O_4135
None. FR001 and FR002 are particularly unsuitable, for the following reasons, which have been also been expanded on by many others. They are: Access to the proposed sites is very poor. Therefore it will be necessary to provide much wider access road which will increase the size of the area outlined, destroying even more greenbelt land.  Additional housing in this area will increase traffic flow in the surrounding roads which often suffer from gridlock already, and can be brought to a standstill, by traffic accidents on M56 when that traffic flows through Helsby and Frodsham, or the A56, roadworks and road closures for roadworks to be carried out.     

Comment

Representation ID: 4078

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Patrick Eakin

SS41
I&O_4301
All of FRO01-03 could be sutiable, but of these, FRO03 woudl likely be most suitable.  This land is broadly on the level with the town centre and closest, providing the highest chance of avoiding car dependent developement.  FRO02 is least suitable in this respect. Regardless of which option is developed, the development must be done in conjunction with improvements that enable safe cycling into the centre of Frodsham.  Currently, there are no suitable car free routes for anybody to cycle to the centre of Frodsham, contributing to the car dependent living and causing unsafe congestion in the centre of town.  Unless this is improved, every single new house built will generate more car trips into Frodsham and along the already congested A56 corridor.  New road building will not solve this, only providing residents a genuine alternative path into town, or restricting car access on some of the current roads to create safe cycling paths.

Comment

Representation ID: 4201

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Kelsall Parish Council

I&O_4430
FROD02 is worse, too far from the main road . Why no mixed use/ employment land included? .

Comment

Representation ID: 4315

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Matthew Roberts

I&O_4544
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://nsip-documents.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-harming-nature-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-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf   Source: Financial Times – https://www.ft.com/content/ff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e   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/local-plan/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/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 ).       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-planning-policy-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-belt-land   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: 4439

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Conway

SS41
I&O_4683
FR003 is the least worst option providing access is suitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 4573

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Nick Jardine

I&O_4856
The only one that I would consider the most suitable is FR003 . It has direct access to the main road and is also walking distance to the town and all it's amenities i.e doctors, shops etc The other two are not really options for numerous reasons such as  Green belt good quality farm land poor access Damage to the ancient hob hey wood air quality they form a large area that Frodsham promotes to attract  visitors light and noise pollution  these are just a few reasons out of many

Comment

Representation ID: 4666

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Fiona Barry

I&O_4962
SS41 I wonder who identified these areas for development, as they clearly have no local knowledge at all, so it was simply a paper exercise for them.  One of the problems of this consultation - apart from making it as inaccessible as possible, and holding it in a holiday period - is that you cannot see the plan with the number on once you have started to make a comment. This shows a lack of attention in planning the survey and I hope that another detailed consultation of this kind will not have such a fundamental flaw in it. I am therefore obliged to open a new tab to refer back to the map. This is very poor. FR001 - the area behind Fairways and around Townfield Lane. a) Area behind Fairways This would be accessed from Bradley Lane. The land is steeply sloping and unsuitable for any significant development: Fairways was onstructed on the top of a ridge. All the houses below Springbourne are not connected to mains drainage, therefore this would be a major infrastructure project. Bradley Lane does not currently support two vehicles passing at once, after the Doric Avenue turning. It would be impossible to carry the level of transport needed for a major development. Further down to the small crossroads at Bradley it becomes an historic area untouched in the last 300 years, and also truly rural, and should be protected.   b) Townsfield Lane - the path of the Roman road from Chester to Wilderspool. On the unmade track, the fields facing the bungalows go down to Hob Hey Wood, one of the North West's last ancient woodlands, with a rich diversity of wildlife that needs protecting. This area needs protecting and the fields above it should act as a buffer zone to future development.  If those fields were developed - which I don't think they should be - how would the new residents get out of Frodsham to go to work? Langdale Way and Fluin Lane are already difficult to exit from. Any crash on the M56 leads to Frodsham becoming gridlocked as only two motorway junctions serve it. Those roads cannot take any additional traffic. Building a new access road at the bottom will severely impact on Hob Hey Road and therefore should not be considered.  FR002 The proposal to develop on Bradley Lane below Lansdowne and on Kingsley Road. I don't consider that it is appropriate to develop below Lansdowne for the reasons given above - lack of road access on both Watery Lane and Bradley Lane. I do however think there is scope to develop the fields on Kingsley Road from Royleen Avenue above the 40 MPH signs (which would then become 30MPH) up to Watery Lane, and also opposite Kingsley Green and Newton Hall nursing home. The road will have easy access for vehicles and sewerage access, utility infrastructure and so on. Access though should ONLY be from Kingsley Road. This will help create a buffer green zone around the historic and agricultural area of Bradley.   FR003 I broadly support development in this area however I disagree with the proposal to link Frodsham with Helsby, which is what this effectively means. (It is rather cleverly concealed by showing half on the Frodsham plan and half on the Helsby plan). I think there should be separation of the two villages. I suggest that there is development along Tarvin Road fields after the Frodsham Town cemetery, and appropriate widening of Tarvin Road to make this possible. There would also need to be traffic lights to enable traffic to get out onto Chester Road, which is difficult at the moment.  I also think that to enable traffic to flow more freely, and to improve the experience on the M56 then a new Junction 13 should be created from Godscroft Lane.  Fundamentally I disagree with the number of houses allocated to Frodsham, of up to 3,000. I do not know how many houses there are already, but with a population of 9,500 it is possible that there are only about 4,000, possibly fewer. Proposing to double the size of the housing stock is illogical, disrespectful to the historic environment and inappropriate. It would be more sensible to double the size of Winsford, which is better served with rail and road networks.      

Comment

Representation ID: 4776

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Laura Holden

I&O_5122
I believe areas FRO1 and FRO2 are both entirely unsutable for development. Both would have too great an impact on the local environment and ecology. Furthermore, it would impact the wellbring of thousands in the vicinity due to the loss of some beautiful countryside and removal of green spaces. I also beleive the infrastucture could not support large scale development on these areas. I accept that some development may be needed and FRO3 would be best, providing it is done with care for the local environment, preservation of wildlife and the sustainability of infrastructure

Comment

Representation ID: 4800

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Malone

I&O_5150
FRO01 and FRO02 would need to be very very sensitively used at small scale. I'm not sure they are really suitable. FRO03 would be potentially a better area, but it would stress the A56 capacity wise unless there was a plan for a new motorway junction.

Comment

Representation ID: 4873

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Louise Cole

SS41 - Frodsham growth options
I&O_5226
Although I have reservations regarding any development in Frodsham (beyond previously developed sites identified in the Local Plan (part one)) because of already stretched services and clogged up transport routes, FRO03 is the only viable option I can see. This growth option is close to the centre of Frodsham with shops, vital services, train station and high school.  

Comment

Representation ID: 4895

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Mason

I&O_5251
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: 5061

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Gordon Adam

I&O_5420
FRO01 and FRO03

Comment

Representation ID: 5078

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mandy Parker

I&O_5437
Q 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.