Comment

Representation ID: 7385

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Alison McKay

I&O_7865
Option A.

Comment

Representation ID: 7414

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Cawley

I&O_7894
FRO03 would be the most suitable growth area. We recognise that housing does need to be built in Frodsham, particularly affordable housing and homes suitable for older people that are downsizing, and this is supported in the local development plan. However, we do not believe FRO01 and FRO02 are suitable, as we do not support building on greenbelt land. It adds pressure to falling infrastructure, it increases flood risk, it destroys wildlife corridors, and it worsens air quality.

Comment

Representation ID: 7469

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Katherine Hague

I&O_7949
None

Comment

Representation ID: 7474

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Amy Gittins

I&O_7954
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: 7479

Received: 29/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Gittins

I&O_7959
Of the three areas identified, FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable. Proposing FRO01 and FRO02 not only this is a terrible idea it also 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: 7561

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Tom Finchett

I&O_8048
I object to the following policy SS41

Comment

Representation ID: 7565

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Lyn Partridge

I&O_8052
I strongly object to the above planning policies in the Hob Hey Wood area.   It would lead to an increased flood risk in the area, destruction of wildlife corridors, more gridlock and problems on Frodsham Roads which is already a real problem for locals and commuters alike.   Also, it would place immense strain on GPs, Dentists and Schools in the area, which are already struggling to cope.  It would worsen air quality and have a detrimental effect on house prices in the adjacent area.  

Comment

Representation ID: 7574

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Ford

I&O_8061
I strongly disagree with the planning permission for the green belt in the Frodsham area Ss41   This is an outside area for wildlife conservation and gives lots of pleasure and information to not just local people but visitors from the surrounding areas plus schools. Has a resident of Frodsham I already have problems getting appointments with doctors and dentists. I have neighbours who find it difficult to get their children into local schools Our roads are congested constantly especially if there is a problem on the M56 we have potholes on every road we really don’t need more congestion. Please take my concerns and that of my neighbours seriously Thank you

Comment

Representation ID: 7602

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Dianne Dawson

Map 5.10
I&O_8089
Of the three areas identified, FR001 and FF002 are completely unsuitable. It would add pressure to already failing infrastructure, increases flood risk and destroy wildlife corridors. Housing could readily be placed north A56 by Gleaves and the railway viaduct - this is vacant land which does not flood.

Comment

Representation ID: 7621

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Wintle

I&O_8108
FRO03 is the “best” (meaning least worst) identified option, assuming the development is suitably sized, in keeping with the town’s architecture and history, and that traffic can enter the site without exceptional congestion.  However, it would begin to link the town of Frodsham with the village of Helsby, which are both very different in character.  They should not be linked in a ribbon development.  They ought to remain separate and allowed to keep their individual characters.

Comment

Representation ID: 7626

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Emma Brown

I&O_8113
I am emailing to object  to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43, my reasoning being frodsham will be grid locked, we need fields in the area , strains on GPS and dentists and schools. Will also lower house prices. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7632

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Clare Lightfoot

I&O_8119
We would like to officially object to any proposal or plan to build homes on the above area.   For myself, I am undergoing cancer treatment and the green belt near to my home is essential for my wellbeing as I need to walk and if it weren't there I would struggle. My mental health would be significantly affected as would my recovery from stem cell transplant.     We don't have much green belt left and I truly believe that this idea has not been researched properly.     There are significant risks in building in this land and they are:-   Increased flood risk (this is very real). Our roads are used as a by pass for the M56 already and Frodsham simply cannot take any more traffic. It is difficult to get a GP appointment or dental appointment at the moment so increasing the population here unnecessarily would put even more strain on these services. We have protected wildlife and some rare wildlife in Hob Hey wood. These habitats would be destroyed irreversibly. We are already affected by air pollution from Runcorn and Stanmore and under specific air monitoring for car fuel emissions- Fluin Lane area. There is a school in this area too - children would be affected even more. Our house prices would decrease.   All in all - this is a poorly researched idea and we strongly object.  

Comment

Representation ID: 7633

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Hunt

I&O_8120
I would like to object to the planning in Hob Hey wood.

Comment

Representation ID: 7634

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Sylvia Hunt

I&O_8121
I would like to object to the planning in Hob Hey Wood.

Comment

Representation ID: 7661

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Simon Weatherup

I&O_8148
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: 7663

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Jenny Roberts

I&O_8150
You ask for the most suitable site of the 3 options you suggest. Unfortunately Fr003 would be. Unfortunately.. stated in my response to question SS42 and SS43.    There were alternative proposed development sites presented to you from the neighbourhood plan not on a year ago. The areas stated in the neighbourhood plan, although not ideal, do incorporate brownfield sites within the town which could be developed (unfortunately for the developers at a higher cost than the virgin greenbelt sites you now propose of FR001, FR002 and FR003.) There are also multiple buildings within the town (ex banks, shops, pubs, clubs) which could be 1st developed rather than jumping straight on to greenbelt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 7696

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Amanda Keoghan

I&O_8183
We must not allow the destruction of Hob Hey Wood, ancient woodland. That supports many animals and rare species of plants. This woodland was a haven for myself and my young child, particularly during Covid. Not only that, this area is already a bottle neck for traffic whenever an incident occurs on the local motorways. Everyone just comes off and heads through Frodsham. It cannot be expected to take on another x amount of cars from people living in hundreds of new homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 7712

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Dennis Keight

I&O_8199
I have just heard of the proposal to allow building on protected Green Belt land next to Hob Hey Wood.    I'm sure that you are well aware of the unique characteristics of Hob Hey Wood in terms of wildlife habitat and ecological niche, but it is also an extremely valued amenity for all nature lovers in this area. Intensive development next to it will result in it being isolated and the elimination of wild life corridors to and through it. If allowed this will blight this area forever: it can never be replaced.    So I object to this development in the strongest possible terms.   There is still plenty of land in this area which could be used instead, without such deleterious effects.   I urge you to reject this proposed development  

Comment

Representation ID: 7724

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Barbara Bazley

I&O_8211
I wish to object to policies SS41/42/43 Ref FRO01 and FRO02. These planning proposals could have a devastating impact on Hob Hey Wood and surrounding areas, both for people and wildlife. It is a much loved area and an oasis of tranquility where people can go to destress and enjoy this ancient woodland, if this habitat is destroyed it will not be recoverable. It is somewhere that is treasured and needs your protection. Please listen to our objections. I live at [address redacted] Runcorn and so it is not just the people in the local vicinity of Hob Hey Wood who will be affected, but the loss of the wood will have far reaching consequences for the wider population as well who enjoy this peaceful spot.

Comment

Representation ID: 7725

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Heather Rogers

I&O_8212
I am emailing to submit an objection to SS41, SS42, SS43, policies on the ground of insufficient infra structure, rods, drains, do tors and schools to support and the loss of a valuable green lung and nature habitat at the end of the weaver valley and sandstone trail

Comment

Representation ID: 7731

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Hughes

I&O_8218
I wish to object to policies SS41,SS42 and SS43. Frodsham does not need  any more homes ,especially there are no plans to develop the infrastructure, ie.  health services,schools and roads. Hob Hey Wood  is an area of natural beauty and there should not be any building anywhere near it  We also do not not beed any building off Dig Lane as well.

Comment

Representation ID: 7735

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Deakin

I&O_8222
The protection of Hob Hey Wood is important to our town both in environmental, well-being and logistical terms.   Already, Frodsham is effectively at capacity on its roads and with its facilities.  For example, the town frequently sees queues in rush hour on all major arterial routes and this becomes a gridlock whenever the M56 has even minor problems or queues.  Areas of the town are in effect "landlocked" and this is true of the Lakes Estate near Hob Hey Wood.  The town itself has a single-point-of-failure risk in the swing bridge access route.   Hob Hey Wood is also a green area used by local people and to erode it denies important recreational and natural space and also natural land to absorb rainfall.  We see the centre of Frodsham flooded in what I would call "manageable" levels when there is significant downpour but adding more houses will increase "run off".  (Until remedial work some 10-12 years ago the bottom of the Lakes Estate flooded regularly.)   Finally, GP and dentist facilities are already incredibly challenging for existing residents let alone new ones.  As far as I am aware, primary schools are close to full as well.   Only recently, planned repair work on the Swing Bridge had to be postponed as it was clear that the town could not weather the impact of its closure.  (There should have been a plan to have an addition of a bailey bridge that was used many years ago for similar repairs.)  The idea that we can add hundreds of new houses in the Hob Hey Wood area presents a serious existential threat to the success of Frodsham as a town.   I understand that development is important but only when it comes with viable and significant investment in infrastructure, the kind of which I do not see mooted in these plans.  

Comment

Representation ID: 7739

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Idris Roberts

I&O_8226
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: 7742

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Malcolm and Sheila Cleworth

I&O_8229
We are strongly against and building on Green belt lend we are losing too much country side and killing our wild life we're objecting to policy SS41

Comment

Representation ID: 7745

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Shaun Adamson

Hob Hey Wood
I&O_8232
I am writing to formally object to the proposed housing development on protected Green Belt land adjacent to Hob Hey Wood, as outlined under policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. My reasons for objection are as follows: 1. Green Belt Protection: The proposed site lies within designated Green Belt land, which is intended to prevent urban sprawl, preserve the countryside, and maintain the distinct character of local communities. Allowing development here would set a damaging precedent. 2. Environmental Impact: Hob Hey Wood is an important area of ancient woodland and a vital wildlife corridor. Development in this location would destroy habitats, harm biodiversity, and irreversibly damage a natural resource that should be safeguarded for future generations 3. Flood Risk: Building on this land would increase surface water runoff and heighten the risk of flooding locally, putting further pressure on existing flood management systems. 4. Infrastructure Pressure: Frodsham already faces significant strain on essential services, including GP surgeries, dental practices, and schools. Additional housing would exacerbate this situation, reducing the quality of healthcare and education provision. 5. Traffic and Pollution: The development would generate more traffic, worsening congestion on already busy local roads. This would increase air pollution and noise, directly affecting residents’ health and quality of life.  6. Community Impact: The loss of countryside and open space would erode the character of Frodsham, diminish community wellbeing, and reduce the value of nearby properties. For these reasons, I strongly urge Cheshire West and Chester Council to reject this proposed development and uphold the protection of our Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 7748

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs Angela Slater

I&O_8235
I wish to register my objection to the following policies: SS41, SS42, SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 7749

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Julie Laughton

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_8236
As a lifelong resident born and bred in Frodsham, I am writing to formally object to the planning application regarding the proposal development on and around the Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham area - policies SS41, SS42 & SS43.  The proposed site lies within designated Green Belt land and National and Local planning policy clearly states that such land should be protected from inappropriate development except in special circumstances. This proposal of hundreds of new houses does not demonstrate such circumstances.  The development would result in the permanent loss of our precious countryside along with the destruction of local wildlife and their habitat. Hob Hey Wood is a local beauty spot consisting of ancient woodland which Wylde be destroyed forever.  The local infrastructure of Frodsham could not cope with the influx of hundreds of new homes. The local roads and lanes are narrow and often congested. The junctions of Bradley Lane and Townfield Lane are already notoriously hazardous. The local GP surgeries struggle to find appointments for the existing population of Frodsham and the supermarkets are small with cramped access for cars. The development would destroy the village community and be a blot on the much loved landscape. For all these reasons I strongly urge the council to reject this application and uphold the principle of Green Belt protection which is there to serve the existing residents and preserve for the next generation. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7756

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Phil Singer

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_8243
I am a Frodsham resident and object to the inclusion of FRO01 and FRO02 as growth areas.   The reasons for my objections are: Green Belt policy Both sites sit within the North Cheshire Green Belt. No exceptional circumstances or brownfield-first alternatives have been demonstrated. Hob Hey Wood – ancient/semi-natural woodland & Local Wildlife Site (SBI) Adjoining ancient/semi-natural woodland. Development would sever wildlife corridors, increase disturbance (pets/traffic), and introduce lighting harmful to bats and other nocturnal species. Flood risk & drainage Replacing permeable fields with hard surfaces would increase run-off, stressing drains/sewers and raising flood risk to nearby homes and streets. Highway capacity & safety The A56 is already congested and worsens when M56 traffic diverts through town. Extra trips would harm safety and delay emergency access. Air quality & amenity More traffic means more air, noise and light pollution. Infrastructure capacity GP practices and schools are under pressure; no funded capacity uplift is identified.   If some growth in Frodsham is unavoidable, FRO03 appears least environmentally sensitive and should be considered ahead of land bordering Hob Hey Wood—subject to brownfield-first delivery, biodiversity net gain, low-traffic design, and secured infrastructure. Please remove FRO01 and FRO02 and refocus on brownfield opportunities. 

Comment

Representation ID: 7759

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Howard

Hob Hey Wood
I&O_8247
I am writing to object to the proposed building of houses around Hob Hey Wood. In particular policies ss41 42 &43.

Comment

Representation ID: 7763

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Kathleen Stockdale

I&O_8251
The reasons for my objection are as follows. There will be more grid lock on Frodsham roads. Whenever there is a problem on the motorway it causes a gridlock which often blocks the whole of the Lakes estate right up to the top of Langdale Way.  There will be a greater strain on GPs, Dentists and schools. All of these are struggling now. There will be destruction of wildlife corridors and ancient woodland. This is detrimental to our biodiversity. There will be worse air quality and light pollution affecting everyone’s health in the area. The loss of community and green space will be detrimental to people’s mental health.     While I appreciate the need for affordable housing in the area there must be other and perhaps smaller areas that cold be used without taking up such a vast expanse of important land.