Comment

Representation ID: 5079

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Darren Parker

I&O_5438
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: 5115

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Georgia Parker

Question SS 41 Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable?
I&O_5479
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: 5117

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Becci Moore

I&O_5481
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: 5156

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: William Barry

I&O_5520
None

Comment

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jon Cole

I&O_5641
As I have said in every other answer I don't believe that building on productive agricultural land is justifiable whilst there are other options. If there are no other options then FRO03 is the most suitable but I would need to be convinced that this is the case. Taking into account the other sections in this consultation it provides many of the aspirations outlined in terms of impact on the local environment and it is the closest to decent road infrastructure and is within a reasonable walk to the centre and train station.  

Comment

Representation ID: 5621

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Mills

Option C – Sustainable transport corridors
I&O_5993
None of these areas are suitable FRO03 encourages urban sprawl and puts pressure on local infastructure and sets a precdent for building on greenbelt . Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. These areas would add pressure to failing infrastructure, increases flood risk and destroy wildlife corridors. It worsens air quality, putting lives at risk. It benefits developers and damages communities, there is no infastructure or services upgrades proposed to support such a large an intrusive number of houses. This is not sustainable. It is not justified. It is not acceptable. There are plenty of brownfield sites within Frodsham  town centre which are in need of redevelopment and having been stood empty this has already made them vunerable to crime and are having a negative impact on the area. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5644

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Cowell

I&O_6016
FRO03

Comment

Representation ID: 5866

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Andrew Rowe

I&O_6238
The Green Belt should remain as the start point. Land availability in the settlement boundary should be maximised, followed by Brownfield sites. Part of FRO/003 close to the town centre has attributes that might be considered as Grey Belt. Large parts on FRO/003 and all of FRO/001 and FRO/003 are open land and should remain so by retaining the Green Belt. 

Comment

Representation ID: 5980

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Marshall

FRO03, FRO01, FRO02
I&O_6369
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: 6009

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Hughes

I&O_6398
None of the proposed sites are suitable - how about Frodsham Marshes? I completely object to these proposed developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 6020

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Durling

SS41
I&O_6409
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 least worst identified option assuming the development is suitably sized, and that traffic can enter the site without congestion. 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: 6172

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christine Webber

I&O_6568
I don't think any of the potential growth areas are suitable. FR003 is the most suitable (least bad) option if I had to choose, but this has problems I believe, particularly for access from the A56 which is very narrow in this area. FR001 and FR002 are completely unsuitable and would result in serious congestion, road safety, further parking problems at the school on Langdale Way and increase air quality problems around Langdale Way, Fluin Lane and the A56. Importantly it would destroy wildlife corridors to the Local Wildlife Sites in this area. Hob Hey Wood is particularly important as it is ancient woodland. One of the ponds (Ellis Lane Pit) is a Local Wildlife Site  which would be damaged and biodiversity lost if links to the other ponds and water courses in this area where built on or around. An alternative area would be off the Kingsley Road B5152) south of Lady Heyes. It would provide good access to Frodsham and Kingsley. It is on the Northwich bus route which could take people to the train stations at Frodsham and Acton Bridge and there is also the itravel bus that could be used to get to Frodsham Station or bus routes to Chester Runcorn or Warrington etc.

Comment

Representation ID: 6177

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Gemma Pugh

Map 5.10 Frodsham Growth Options
I&O_6573
Option A - retain the Greenbelt. I firmly object to to devleopment in Frodsham.

Comment

Representation ID: 6185

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Carolyn Stratton

I&O_6581
Do not build on the green belt. OPTION A for Frodsham. FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. They add pressure to failing infrastructure, increase flood risk (which is a known issue in this area), destroys wildlife corridors, worsens air quality. The only people to benefit will be the deveopers - who will be long gone with their profits in the bank before the real chaos of what they have created in Frodsham is felt. By both the new inhabitant and the present locals.It is not acceptable to increase a small town by the proposed amount in what is effectively a cul-de-sac location. Exiting by car via Fluin Lane or at the top of Townfield Lane is already difficult and a heavier volume of traffic will make this worse. Stating Frodsham has a train service is laughable - and in no way comparible to other sites in Cheshire West. The once an hour service to Liverpool - which stops at 10am on a weekend and stops for 2 hours in the afternoon peak - will not attact people to ditch the car and take the train. The Manchester service is a sardine can each morning, again only operating once an hour. Can the planning people come here and really see what is proposed, I'm sure a local will show all the issues re congestion. The swing brige isn't fit for purpose even now, so with more traffic it will be disasterous.  The land south of Lady Hayes would be suitable for a small development, with access to both frodsham and for the other direction, there is a train service which routes through Delamere to Manchestser which could be accessed from this end of Frodsham - for those who's work location allows travel by train.  

Comment

Representation ID: 6196

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Shabina Briggs

I&O_6592
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: 6268

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Councillor Lucy Sumner

I&O_6675
5 | SS 41 Which of the identified potential growth areas around Frodsham do you consider to be the most suitable?   🐝 Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan Evidence Base The Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan (FNHP) is explicit: the town can only sustainably accommodate around 97 additional homes, primarily on brownfield and windfall sites. Policies H1–H2 emphasise smaller, affordable homes for young families and older downsizers. The FNHP SEA and evidence base ruled out FRO01 and FRO02 because of flooding, biodiversity loss, and landscape harm. Allocating these sites would directly contradict the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.   🌳 Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood FRO01 and FRO02 would sever Hob Hey Wood’s ecological corridors, destroying habitats for bats, birds, and other species. Hob Hey is an ancient woodland, Local Green Space, and Site of Biological Importance. As Natural England and the Woodland Trust both emphasise, ancient woodland is irreplaceable: once lost, it is lost forever. These sites must be categorically excluded.   🌹 Labour Perspective Labour nationally has committed to brownfield-first, with “grey belt” considered only for poor-quality land that contributes little to Green Belt purposes, and only under five golden rules: brownfield first, grey belt second, at least 50% affordable housing, infrastructure delivery, and green space improvements. FRO01 and FRO02 fail on every test: they are high-value Green Belt, ecological corridors, and flood buffers. HOPE for Frodsham reflects this in stressing countryside protection and infrastructure-first growth.   The CPRE has already warned that much so-called “grey belt” is in fact vital farmland, woodland, or floodplain. Hob Hey is none of the “low-value scrub” Starmer referred to – it is the opposite: one of Frodsham’s most valuable natural assets.   🧠 Wider Context Gallent: warns against commuter-led estates that do not meet local need. Colenutt: shows how speculative allocations undermine democratic planning. Bourland: stresses protecting carbon sinks and flood defences as part of climate resilience. Guardian (2025): too many estates are being built without schools, GPs, or shops, leaving residents stranded and services overstretched. Without infrastructure-first delivery, Frodsham will face the same failures.   📌 Important Considerations The only site that could even be considered is FRO03, and only on a strictly limited scale if: It can be proven to be brownfield or genuinely low environmental value. It delivers smaller affordable homes for local people. Infrastructure (schools, GP capacity, A56 traffic mitigation) is guaranteed upfront. FRO01 and FRO02 must be ruled out on grounds of Green Belt permanence, ancient woodland protection, flood risk, and contradiction with FNHP. The most suitable growth for Frodsham is the modest brownfield and windfall development already identified in the Neighbourhood Plan. Of the sites listed, only FRO03 may warrant limited investigation, but FRO01 and FRO02 must be excluded outright to protect Hob Hey Wood, the Green Belt, and Frodsham’s character.

Comment

Representation ID: 6277

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Victor Malpeli

MAP 5.10
I&O_6684
None of the three areas identified are suitable, they are all are greenbelt, farming land. 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, FR002 and FR003 the problem gets worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This suggested  development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk. The suggested site at FR003 will have and entrance/exit onto a narrow section of the A56, the pavement is narrow, hogh school children walk down this road to and from school, adding hundreds more vehicles will make this even more unsafe. The suggested sites are FR001 and FR002 join langdale way, leading to Fluin lane and A56, at times it already impossible to get out of Langdale way and Fluin Lane, adding hundreds more houses will not improve this for anyone. 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.   Suggesting that people living in new houses will  use the train is ridiculous, the trains generally have two carriages that are already jam packed full during commuting hours.

Comment

Representation ID: 6298

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Henry Lazarowicz

I&O_6705
None of the potential growth areas around Frodsham are particularly good, especially FRO01 and FRO02 - which will impinge on Green Belt Land adjacent to Hob Hey Woods, which is one small remaining area of ancient woodland and wildlife habitat.  The building of houses in these areas will increase pressures on the current infrastructures in Frodsham, and in particular the surrounding roads, which are already in a poor state of repair and frequently gridlocked (particularly when there are traffic issues on the M56), with no viable alternative 'escape' routes for local traffic to use in these instances. Building along the A56 corridor (FRO03) will also have a significant impact on pupils from Frodsham and environs accessing Helsby High School, the principal feeder school for the area, in terms of short-term building hazards and short and longer term greater traffic volumes and congestion in the area. Would the local infrastructure be able to cope with the increased demands these houses would place, eg. School places, healthcare provisions, etc?

Comment

Representation ID: 6331

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Basden

Question SS 41
I&O_6738
a)  FRO03 - is green belt and I would prefer that this land is not built on. But, it is the least worst option in that there is no ancient woodland there, although pleasant farmland would disappear. The houses nearest to Frodsham in this option would be within easy walking distance of the railway station and not up a significant hill (as in FRO02). All the houses here would be relatively close to the A56 for buses to Chester and Runcorn etc. There would be more traffic joining the A56, adding to the long queue that builds up there at times (heading into Frodsham) especially when there is ‘trouble on the motorway’. b) The most southernly part of FRO02 just might be suitable for housing - i.e. the part nearest to Lady Heyes (and south of Bradley Lane). The boundary between FRO01 and FRO02 is not clear, but anything north of Bradley Lane would affect Hob Hey Wood, which is ancient woodland and should be left well alone. Even building on the most southernly part of FRO02 might have a knock-on affect on Hob Hey Wood. Also, these houses would be nearly two miles from the railway station - a long uphill walk, so residents would be likely to use cars for transport. Plus these houses are not close to the bus routes of the A56.   

Comment

Representation ID: 6391

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Edward Bennett

I&O_6804
FRO03 may cause less concentration of traffic around centre of town, but is less convenient for railway station. Would expect FRO03 to have less impact on current residents.

Comment

Representation ID: 6431

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Christopher Starkie

Map 5.10
I&O_6845
Given the range of options available for regeneration and development across the wider county, the proposal to build on FR001, FR002 and develop two areas of green belt land is not a sensible option for development. The valuable ecosystem present at the FR001 and FR002 locations should be preserved at all costs and removed from development plans entirely. Furthermore, given the practical infrastructure limitations and negative impacts to the community it is not possible to consider any of the proposed FR001, FR002 or FR003 developments to be suitable.

Comment

Representation ID: 6467

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Sue Sljivic

SS41
I&O_6881
Most appropriate area is FR03. It would seem that Helsby and Frodsham could potnetially become a ribbon development along the A56.

Comment

Representation ID: 6541

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Mills

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_6958
I [address redacted] back on Hob Hey wood and the surrounding fields. For the last 36 years we have enjoyed a wealth of wildlife in our garden and surrounding fields, pheasants, foxes, badgers and several rarely seen birds, they have become part of our family, to destroy their local habitat would be criminal. My children and grandchildren have enjoyed romping through Hob Hey wood and local fields over the years, picking blackberries, and using the community orchard in Hob Hey wood, that is used and loved by so many people, and was a godsend during covid for peoples mental health and well being, to build on any of this land would take away so many peoples pleasure of walks and family days out. There would also be concern about the amount of added traffic within the area, school parking is already very dangerous, and to increase this with more residents would be an accident waiting to happen. The doctors and dentists are already at tipping point and incredibly hard to get appointments, an increase in the population would make it even harder to access these services. We regularly have gridlocks in the traffic in Frodsham due to accidents on the M56 where people use Frodsham as an alternative route, and it causes absolute chaos.  It’s wonderful to see the ever changing scenery around us, and to replace this with a monstrous housing estate would be a sin.  Frodsham is and always has been a lovely community, it has already grown from a village to a town, a more populated area will increase the risk of more anti social behaviour and the area does not have a local police station anymore to deal with this. I totally object to any planning permission in FRO01 and FRO02.

Comment

Representation ID: 6557

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: John Wharne

I&O_6974
Only FRO03 is a suitable area for development

Comment

Representation ID: 6611

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Will Holden

I&O_7031
All are in green belt land and should be avoided. There would have to be firm justification that all satisfactory alternatives have been explored before these areas are brought forward. Development on agricultural land of ALC 1-3 should be avoided as it is not a suitable use for productive land and any gains in biodiversity will be difficult to achieve.

Comment

Representation ID: 6777

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mary Malpeli

MAP5.10 qU SS41
I&O_7204
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 and damaged the Hob Hey Wood ancient woodland ecosystem . It worsens air quality.  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 Don’t build on FRO01 and FRO02. this is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it. 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/... 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/.../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: 6792

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Jane Moore

I&O_7219
I wish to object to the proposed building of houses near to ancient woodland . This place is very special to many in  Frodsham and to build there would diminish the few green spaces we have remaining .   Others will list the many disadvantages of the plans but personally I feel the loss of open green spaces is detrimental to mental health . Hobhey is a place away from the noise and pollution of traffic and once this beautiful place is destroyed it can’t be replaced .   We should be planting more trees and not creating more traffic !

Comment

Representation ID: 6970

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Lambert Smith Hampton

I&O_7438
FR001 and FR003

Comment

Representation ID: 7204

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Diane Kennedy

I&O_7682
Of the three areas identified, I believe that FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. These two sites are a disaster for Frodsham for the future for the following reasons:  Adds pressure to an already failing infrastructure - come to Frodsham (if you can) on any day that there is a problem with the M56 and see for yourselves; Increases flood risk; Destroys vital and irreplaceable wildlife corridors; Would be to the detriment of air quality; Damages a community; Is not sustainable. FRO03 is therefore the least worst option as it at least would have the possibilty of traffic entering that location without adding to the congestion. Have other, more suitable opportunities been considered - for example, land to the south of Lady Hayes, adjoining the B5152 allowing for good access to Frodsham and Kingsley.

Comment

Representation ID: 7346

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Nichola Starkie

Map 5.10
I&O_7826
Given the range of options available for regeneration and development, I strongly reject the proposal to build on FR001 and FR002, two areas of green belt land. The valuable ecosystem present at the FR001 and FR002 locations should be preserved at all costs and removed from development plans entirely. Development on these locations would increase the flood risk, overload the roads, strain the local services and destroy valuable ecosystems.