Comment

Representation ID: 8662

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Brian Daly

I&O_9153
Both Option B and Option C envisage the release of green belt land around Frodsham to meet development targets, a course of action that conflicts with the Council’s own strategic vision to protect the borough’s distinctive character and risks placing unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure.   Option B proposes a partial release of green belt land on the northern and western fringes of Frodsham, seeking to meet housing shortfalls by expanding the settlement boundary into open countryside. Option C goes further, recommending development on multiple green belt parcels surrounding the town to achieve a higher growth rate. Both options undermine the fourth overarching principle of the draft Local Plan vision: “Protecting character – protecting the special character of the Cheshire countryside and its villages”. Encroachment into these landscapes not only diminishes the intrinsic rural qualities that define Frodsham, it also sets a precedent for future erosion of green belt protections across the borough.   In stark contrast, the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan demonstrates conclusively that a minimum of 250 new dwellings can be delivered within the existing settlement boundary and on brownfield and infill sites, without any need to develop green belt land. Over twenty sites have already been assessed through local surveys, the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, and the masterplan and design code reports. Piecemeal incremental growth on these brownfield and under-utilised plots respects the town’s pattern of development, preserves its heritage assets and conservation areas, and aligns with the community’s stated preference to maintain Frodsham’s compact, walkable form.   This divergence between the two plans becomes stark when considering the policy framework each document invokes. The Council’s Issues and Options paper acknowledges that new development must safeguard local distinctiveness and townscape qualities (Objective SO12), yet it simultaneously floats Options B and C that fundamentally alter Frodsham’s rural edge and historical setting. By contrast, the Neighbourhood Plan ensures that design guidance on scale, materials and layout flows directly from the Frodsham Town Design Statement and the locally commissioned design code, securing both heritage protection and incremental growth compatible with the town’s character.

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 8669

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Tina White

I&O_9160
I wish to formally lodge my objection to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. I wish to object on the following grounds: The current infrastructure and road network in Frodsham, particularly the A56 is already under pressure at commuter rush hour and school drop off and collection times . A potential further 500 homes in this area would cause further pressure on the road network resulting in further delays and traffics backlogs as there is only one main exit route out of frodsham. The environmental impact of the additional traffic and pollution should also be considered. In addition, the potential for a further 500 homes would put serious  pressure on the schools, pre-schools and medical practice in Frodsham. School places in Frodsham are highly sought and in the proposals there seems to be no mention of a new school facility being built. It is already difficult to get a Dr.’s appointment in Frodsham and the existing medical centre seems to be fully stretched and at full capacity. Is there any provision to expand the existing medical centre or create an additional medical practice? A further major concern is that as the proposed sites are currently in rural green belt areas the ecological impact that the developments would have is serious.  The surrounding fields are occupied by a number of badger sets, foxes and bird life and bats. Would provision be made for these to be relocated? I trust that my objections will be formally registered.

Comment

Representation ID: 8704

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Cowley

I&O_9197
I would like to object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 8712

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Hilary Lovick

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_9205
I would like to say that I have never felt the need to write to the council to object over plans for building before. However, I feel so  strongly against these proposed plans  that I feel action is needed. I am responding to questions SS41, SS42, SS43 on the consultation document. These are the main reasons that I consider all three areas are unsuitable for Development; Infrastructure The existing roads are already struggling to cope with the traffic. The A56 is extremely busy at peak times, especially at school times and during the summer months on Fridays and Weekends. There is no way it could cope with the considerable extra traffic these developments would create. When there is an accident on the M56, which seems to be happening more frequently, the traffic is diverted through Helsby and Frodsham and the whole area becomes severely gridlocked.  The A56 passing by the proposed development opposite Castle Park is narrow and dangerous for bicycles. The road is used by school children cycling to and from Helsby High School, Also, the roads leading on to the A56 in Frodsham are not suitable for extra traffic. I live on the Lakes Estate in Frodsham (I really hope the Councillors responsible for making the decisions for the building of these houses are familiar with the area)  it looks as if this is where the access road would be (Langdale Way), along with Bradley Lane and Watery Lane, all too narrow and unsuitable for an increase in traffic. There is already considerable strain on the doctors in Frodsham. it is difficult to get an appointment and almost impossible to get a Dentist appointment.  Extra schools would have to be built or existing ones extended, Again this will cause extra traffic. Frodsham is well placed for Liverpool and Manchester, but the trains are often overcrowded, standing room only, To build this amount of houses will cause considerable disruption for many years while the above points are addressed before any building can begin. Ancient Woodland The proposed developments FRO01 and FRO02 are too close to Hob Hey Wood which is a designated Ancient Woodland. These woodlands are extremely important .Centuries of undisturbed soil and decaying wood have created the perfect place for birds, mammals, insects and fauna to survive. Ancient Woodlands are irreplaceable and once they are gone they are gone forever. Building this close to Hob Hey will disturb the peace and upset the habitat of the wild life. Are you aware that Cheshire has less ancient woodland than most other counties. Another reason why it should be protected. Please consider these points before you make a decision that will spoil the whole infrastructure and community of Frodsham. 

Comment

Representation ID: 8729

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Eccles

I&O_9222
Hello I would like to strongly object to ss41, ss42 and ss43 for the below reasons. Green Belt Protection   Policy conflict: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 137–140 states that Green Belt land should only be developed in “exceptional circumstances.”   No clear justification has been provided for why these homes must be built on this specific Green Belt land as opposed to brownfield or infill sites elsewhere.   The proposal undermines the very purpose of Green Belt designation: to protect countryside from urban sprawl, preserve character of rural communities, and safeguard natural environments. Environmental and Ecological Damage   Hob Hey Wood is a cherished, ecologically sensitive ancient woodland with high biodiversity and public value.   Development on adjoining land could cause:   Irreversible habitat disruption   Edge effects: light, noise, litter, invasive species encroachment   Hydrological changes affecting drainage and water flow through the wood   Violates national and local biodiversity and Natural England principles on protecting ancient woodland buffer zones. Scale and Overdevelopment   Proposal would increase village population by up to 50%, which:   Is disproportionate to the existing settlement   Risks fundamentally altering the character of a historic rural community   Contravenes Cheshire West and Chester’s Local Plan (especially policies on sustainable development and community balance) Traffic and Infrastructure Pressure   Frodsham/Helsby already suffers severe congestion, especially around the M56 junctions and school run times.   No existing road infrastructure improvements are proposed to cope with the increased volume of vehicles.   Access roads likely unsuitable for construction traffic and permanent increased flow. Lack of Infrastructure Capacity   Local schools, GP surgeries, dentists and social services are already stretched.   No evidence of funding or phased expansion plans to accommodate the sudden population spike.   Risks creating an unsustainable development, contrary to NPPF objectives. Heritage and Landscape Value   Hob Hey Wood is not just green space — it’s part of the cultural and historical identity of the area.   Development would harm visual amenity, remove key wildlife corridors, and degrade views for locals and walkers.   Loss of green space impacts mental wellbeing, walking routes, and Frodsham’s eco-tourism appeal. Negative Economic Impact on Residents   Property values in Frodsham could fall due to:   Overcrowding and loss of green outlook   Increased traffic and reduced tranquility   Long-term financial harm to existing residents, especially retirees or those dependent on house equity.

Comment

Representation ID: 8790

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Kellett

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9283
To whom it may concern, I object to the proposed plan to build hundreds of homes at Hob Hey Wood Frodsham. Ancient woodland with a clough which contains many species of trees, wild flowers and ferns, many species of wildlife such as animals, birds and bats would be destroyed. In addition air quality would be worsened, noise and air pollution would be would be increased from increased traffic on narrow roads in the area. Narrow lanes means more danger for drivers, passengers, walkers and cyclists. This area is used by many people enjoying the area on foot or on cycles and needs to be kept quiet and safe. In addition I doubt doctors, dentists and schools can cope with hundreds more people living in the area. It is very difficult to get a doctor or dentist appointment currently. I am objecting to policies SS41, SS42, SS43. It is NO to REF: FRO01 and FRO02.

Comment

Representation ID: 8819

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Taylor

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9312
I  object  to the identification of  FRO01 (east of Townfield Lane)  and  FRO02 (east of Kingsley Road)  for housing growth. My primary concern is the  direct impact of FRO01  on the amenity, character and environmental function of the countryside immediately  east of Townfield Lane/Greenside Avenue . Summary of objection Green Belt:  Exceptional circumstances for releasing these Green Belt parcels have not been robustly demonstrated. Reasonable alternatives (brownfield, intensification in sustainable locations, and distribution to less constrained settlements) have not been exhausted in evidence. Ancient woodland & ecology (Hob Hey Wood):  FRO01/FRO02 would sever functional habitat corridors linked to  Hob Hey Wood (ancient woodland/SBI)  unless wide, guaranteed buffers and dark corridors are secured at plan stage (not left to applications). Settlement edge & character:  The land east of Townfield Lane forms Frodsham’s  rural edge and green buffer . Large allocations here would significantly urbanise this edge, harming the character enjoyed by Greenside Avenue and nearby streets. Highways & air quality:  The  A56 corridor  already experiences congestion, compounded by  M56  diversion events. Frodsham’s air quality has only recently improved; any allocation here risks backsliding without funded, deliverable transport measures. Flood risk & drainage:  Greenfield absorption around Hob Hey currently attenuates runoff. Large-scale development risks increasing surface-water and sewer exceedance unless extensive  on-site attenuation/SUDS  and safeguarded exceedance routes are secured. Infrastructure capacity:  GP and school capacity is already tight. There is no clear, funded package demonstrating timely provision aligned to occupancy triggers. Detailed grounds (material considerations) Green Belt and spatial strategy Releasing  FRO01/FRO02  would materially erode the Green Belt at Frodsham’s most sensitive, wooded edge. National policy requires  exceptional circumstances  and a clear demonstration that  non-Green Belt options  and higher densities have been fully tested first. That evidence is not yet presented at Reg 18. On this basis,  FRO01 and FRO02 should not progress to the preferred strategy . Ancient woodland / biodiversity net gain / lighting Hob Hey Wood  is  ancient woodland  and a  Site of Biological Interest  supporting protected and priority species (including multiple bat species). Standing advice expects  minimum 15m buffers  to ancient woodland, often significantly larger where indirect impacts (light, noise, hydrology, recreation pressure, pets) apply. Any allocation footprint in FRO01/FRO02 would require: Very wide no-build buffers  to the woodland (substantially >15m), Unlit “dark corridors”  and controlled lighting (ILP/Bat Conservation guidance), Mapped, continuous habitat corridors  across the site (not left to later masterplanning), and Demonstrable net biodiversity gain well above the minimum  given the sensitivity. None of this is secured at Reg 18; therefore allocating the sites is  premature . Settlement edge, townscape & amenity The fields east of Townfield Lane form the  last rural outlook  for Greenside Avenue and adjacent streets and act as a  visual/amenity buffer  for the town. Large-scale suburbanisation here would fundamentally alter that character. The  Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan  emphasises high design and landscape integration; the scale and location of FRO01 conflicts with this, unless radically reduced and re-shaped with strategic green infrastructure. Transport & air quality The  A56  is frequently congested, with conditions worsening during  M56  incidents/closures when traffic diverts through Frodsham. Without firm, funded mitigation (active travel links that actually substitute trips, bus service enhancements, signal/junction upgrades and parking management), concentrating 1,000+ homes at this edge risks worsening  congestion, safety, and air quality . Plan-level transport evidence and secured measures are required  before  any allocation. Surface-water & foul drainage risk Loss of permeable greenfield at this catchment edge risks  faster runoff and sewer exceedance , with potential knock-on effects to nearby estates and lanes. Allocation should be avoided where it increases downstream risk. If pursued, it must  safeguard substantial on-site attenuation land , restrict discharge to  greenfield rates , and provide mapped  exceedance routes  that do  not  pass towards Hob Hey or Greenside Avenue. Infrastructure capacity & phasing GP and school capacity is constrained. Any allocation must be tied to  clear, costed infrastructure  with  delivery triggers  (e.g., school expansion places, primary care capacity, sustainable transport)  before occupations , not after. Requested outcome For the reasons above,  do not take FRO01 and FRO02 forward  to the preferred strategy at Reg 19. Prioritise  brownfield land ,  higher densities in the most sustainable locations , and less constrained settlements. If (despite this objection) an allocation proceeds Please embed  plan-level, binding requirements  for any Frodsham edge site to protect Greenside Avenue and Hob Hey Wood: Strategic Green Infrastructure : No-build buffer ≥50m  along Hob Hey Wood;  continuous ≥30m wildlife corridors  connecting across the site. Dark corridors  (target  ≤0.5 lux  vertical at woodland edge) with curfewed, full-cutoff lighting elsewhere. Native hedgerow/tree retention  with additional planting to create a  permanent landscape break  east of Townfield Lane. Access & traffic : No vehicular or construction access via Greenside Avenue  or similar quiet cul-de-sacs. Primary access from the  A56 corridor only , with  signal/junction upgrades  and funded  active travel  links that are direct, safe and step-free to schools/centre. A binding  Low Emission/Mode-Share Strategy  with monitoring and remedial measures. Flood & drainage : On-site attenuation basins  and SUDS to achieve  greenfield runoff rates  for all storm events up to 1 in 100yr + climate change, with safeguarded  exceedance routes  away from Hob Hey/Greenside. Early agreement with the LLFA/UU on  foul capacity  and any necessary upgrades  prior  to occupations. Biodiversity net gain : Target >20% BNG , delivered  on-site  as a first principle, with long-term management secured. Design & phasing : A  site design code  adopted as SPD before applications; Phasing tied to infrastructure triggers  (school/GP capacity, junction works, bus improvements) with no occupation until milestones are met.

Comment

Representation ID: 9026

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Boulton

I&O_9519
We need to protect our green space …our beautiful woodland and surrounding area are sacrosanct .The idea that they re up for building on is simply idiotic ! Please consider the destruction of wildlife habitat.The strain on are already busy roads ,GP s dentists and schools.   I am objecting to SS41 

Comment

Representation ID: 9074

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Povall

I&O_9567
I'm writing to object to planning policies SS41, SS42, SS43. Like many other Frodsham residents, I enjoy the peace of Hob Hey Wood & the surrounding land: it's a well known fact that being out in nature has great health benefits. I love to walk down Bradley Lane, Watery Lane, and do a circuit of that part of our town, including the woods going down towards the River Weaver. I am shocked to read that building permission is being sought for that area: this would destroy wildlife and cause damage to ancient woodland, as well as worsen air quality & result in light pollution. I fail to see how increased traffic would cope on those lanes, and the nearby main road between Frodsham & Kingsley. As with other new housing plans, it's difficult to understand how existing shops, schools, medical services, and other community resources would cope with the increase in population. While realising I may seem to be a NIMBY (not in my back yard) in this case I see no sense at all in the proposal to build in that part of Frodsham. I dread the thought of the loss of more green space which our community loves so much. I plead for you to refuse policies SS41, SS42, SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 9107

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Cameron

FR001 and FR002
I&O_9600
I write to object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in Frodsham, as part of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan 2025 consultation. I urge the Council to remove these sites from the plan on the basis of sound planning grounds and material considerations, detailed below. 1. Highway Safety and Traffic Congestion The addition of significant housing numbers on FRO01 and FRO02 would exacerbate traffic problems on already overstretched local roads, including Fluin Lane and Langdale Way. These are residential roads not designed for large increases in vehicle use. There are known bottlenecks around the A56 and Station Road, and local junctions already suffer from congestion at peak times and when there are problems on the M56 the area becomes completely gridlocked. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 111 states that development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. No evidence has been presented to show how the local road network would cope with increased vehicle movements, nor have mitigation measures been specified. 2. Strain on Local Infrastructure Frodsham already faces significant pressure on public infrastructure and essential services. GP practices in the area are oversubscribed, you cannot get an NHS dental space, local schools are near or at capacity, and public transport links do not offer sufficient alternatives to car travel. The NPPF (paragraphs 20 and 34) requires Local Plans to ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided in a timely manner to support development. The Council has not produced clear infrastructure delivery plans for health or education provision specific to these sites. Allocating more housing without a binding and funded infrastructure strategy risks overburdening already stretched local services, to the detriment of new and existing residents alike. 3. Flood Risk and Drainage Concerns There is a well-documented history of surface water flooding around Langdale Way and lower-lying areas of Frodsham. Significant drainage works were undertaken in the past to prevent recurrence. However, the addition of hard, impermeable surfaces from new housing would increase runoff, putting adjacent homes and roads at renewed risk. Under NPPF paragraph 159, development must be directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding. Any scheme must also demonstrate how it will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. There is no detail in the plan showing that a sustainable drainage strategy has been considered or how it would be implemented on these greenfield sites. 4. Biodiversity and Harm to Ancient Woodland Hob Hey Wood lies adjacent to these proposed development sites and is a designated ancient woodland. Under NPPF paragraph 180(c), development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy. The proximity of these sites to Hob Hey Wood would significantly increase human disturbance, light pollution, pet intrusion, and sever wildlife corridors that currently link the woodland to open countryside. These cumulative impacts are likely to have long-term, irreversible effects on biodiversity and protected species in the area. There is no ecological justification or assessment provided in the plan to show how harm would be avoided or mitigated. 5. Unsustainable Site Selection and Conflict with NPPF Principles The rationale for selecting these sites appears to be based predominantly on their proximity to Frodsham railway station. However, proximity alone does not equate to sustainable development if the site is environmentally constrained and lacks the infrastructure to support new housing. The NPPF (paragraph 8) sets out the three overarching objectives of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental. These proposals are unbalanced, placing development pressure on the Green Belt and sensitive ecological areas without adequate public benefit. Furthermore, this approach runs contrary to the brownfield-first principle embedded in national policy, and the plan fails to demonstrate why less environmentally sensitive sites elsewhere in the borough have not been prioritised. 6. Green Belt Harm Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt. The NPPF (paragraph 140) makes clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, fully evidenced and justified. Developments here conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 137–140, which require “exceptional circumstances” to justify Green Belt release. 42% of the local plan is deemed to be greenbelt. The current housing quotas for Frodsham is 250 without touching greenbelt, the proposed sites are looking to build 1339 on greenbelt land, I cant see how building 1314 more homes than what is required constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’. No such justification has been convincingly provided for releasing these sites. The contribution of FRO01 and FRO02 to the openness and purpose of the Green Belt — including preventing urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside — remains significant. Development here would permanently erode the rural setting of Frodsham, contrary to both national policy and local public sentiment. To conclude: For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local Plan 2025 is unsound on the basis that it is: •Not justified by a robust evidence base, •Not consistent with national planning policy (including the NPPF), •Not effective in terms of infrastructure delivery, •Not legally compliant with environmental protection and sustainability duties. I therefore respectfully request that the Council remove sites FRO01 and FRO02 from the Local Plan and explore more sustainable alternatives in line with planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9185

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Carrie Bennett-Brown

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_9678
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of over 1,300 houses in the areas designated as FRO01 and FRO02 in your Local Plan consultation. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning that ignores fundamental principles of sustainable development and environmental protection.  Wildlife Corridors and Ancient Woodland The proposed development sites, FRO01 and FRO02, are not isolated parcels of land. They are part of a crucial wildlife corridor that connects and supports the ancient woodland of Hob Hey Wood. Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest, an irreplaceable and highly biodiverse ecosystem that is home to thousands of species. Building on this land would sever these vital connections, isolating the woodland and leading to a significant decline in its biodiversity. Once these habitats are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. The Planning Inspectorate recognises the importance of these corridors, and this proposal flies in the face of established ecological planning principles.  Green Belt Policy and Flood Risk The areas in question are part of the protected Green Belt, a policy designed to prevent urban sprawl and preserve the open character of land. The proposed development directly contravenes this policy by building on land that acts as Frodsham's rural buffer. Furthermore, the land’s permeable nature is critical for managing flood risk. The Hob Hey Wood area acts as a natural sponge, absorbing rainwater and slowing surface runoff. The council's own Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) highlights the importance of these natural flood defenses. Paving over FRO01 and FRO02 would increase the speed and volume of runoff, putting existing homes at greater risk of devastating surface water flooding.  Infrastructure Strain Frodsham's infrastructure is already struggling. Our roads, particularly the A56, are frequently gridlocked. Adding hundreds of new houses would introduce hundreds of extra vehicles, further overwhelming the road network. This would not only worsen congestion but could also slow emergency services, potentially putting lives at risk. The strain on public services is equally dire, as there is no spare capacity in our local GP practices and schools. The addition of a large population without a corresponding increase in infrastructure would result in a decline in the quality of these essential services for all residents. Loss of Property Value The proposed development also poses a direct financial threat to existing homeowners in Frodsham. A key reason people choose to live here is for its access to open countryside and green views. The development on FRO01 and FRO02 would effectively strip away this rural buffer, fundamentally altering the character of the area. A large-scale development that introduces more traffic, noise, and light pollution will diminish the very features that give homes in this area their worth. The developers will profit from building on this land, but existing residents will be left to face lower resale values and a loss of the peaceful environment they were sold on. Air Quality and Light Pollution Frodsham is already within an Air Quality Management Area due to existing high levels of pollutants. The addition of hundreds of new cars will inevitably worsen air pollution, posing a direct risk to the health of all residents. Furthermore, the introduction of widespread lighting from new houses and streets will cause significant light pollution. This is not just a nuisance; it is a serious ecological threat that disrupts the natural behaviour of nocturnal wildlife, particularly bats and moths, both of which are present in Hob Hey Wood. Antisocial Behaviour and Lack of Community Cohesion The proposed development fails to meet the fundamental requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which states that new growth should support community cohesion. By isolating new homes on the edge of town without integrated public services or social infrastructure, this proposal risks creating a disconnected community. Such estates can become under-supported and under-policed, leading to social fragmentation and a potential increase in antisocial behaviour. This approach is detrimental to both the new and existing residents and fails to create a unified, thriving community. Conclusion  For all the reasons outlined above, I believe that the proposed development on Green Belt sites FRO01 and FRO02 is not sustainable, not justified, and not acceptable. My objection is a formal response to consultation questions SS41, SS42, and SS43. I urge you to remove these sites from the Local Plan immediately.

Comment

Representation ID: 9199

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dr and Mrs Frederick Murphy

FRO01, FR02, Hob Hey Wood
I&O_9692
We wish to object to the proposals in relation to the development of land in the vicinity of Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham, areas designated FRO01 and FRO02. Our objections are firm and directly related to the change in the land from green belt to development land on which it is proposed new housing will be built. This development must not go ahead for a number of reasons that we set out below.  Wildlife Hob Hey wood is a site of biological interest and home to many species (some of which are rare). The overall effect on these will inevitably be destructive. In addition the resulting impact on wildlife corridors will be severe and the sustainability of the ecosystem will be impacted adversely. There will be no going back once wildlife corridors are closed off, it will be a one-off action amounting to destruction of the countryside in that area.  Traffic Additional traffic on Kingsley Road as a result of housing development from FRO02 and likely arising from FRO01 through into Fluin Lane will make traffic congestion in Frodsham intolerable. Inevitably, this would also add to traffic flow onto the swing bridge which is a pinch point to overall traffic flow in the event of an incident on the M56, where Frodsham provides the ‘rat run’. Currently Frodsham’s principal T-junction at the Bears Paw pub takes traffic from Delamere, Kingsley, Norley and many local communities and villages as well as local traffic. During the mid morning period traffic is often backed up at the lights and then feeds through to the bottom of Fluin lane where other traffic attempts to emerge. Combining extra numbers of cars and lorries with those coming out of Fluin lane (i.e. arising from FRO01) would be a severe (and predictable) traffic accident hotspot.  Other developments It is understood that a solar farm with battery storage is proposed on Frodsham marshes in a future potential development. Current battery technology has been known to fail (there are several instances) with catastrophic consequences. The resulting fires are difficult to contain with toxic gas emitted as a result of the breakdown of the materials of construction. In the unfortunate event of a fire, the designated area FRO01 would be in the direct path of such toxic fumes and hence those living there would be at direct risk of harm. On the basis of the above email we therefore object to policies SS41, SS42, SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 9286

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Olivia Gatehouse

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_9780
I am responding to the consultation on the local plan, with particular reference to the proposed development of the areas titled FRO01 and FRO02 in Frodsham. My response therefore relates to key questions SS41, SS42 and SS43. I believe that building on the areas FRO01 and FRO02 would be disastrous for local residents, would severely damage the town and would seriously endanger local habits and the natural environment. Building in these areas is completely unsuitable and would create huge strain on local infrastructure and an already very busy road network. FR001 and FR002 are two parcels of greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal show very poor planning and it would damage our community, increase flood risk, overload roads that are already too busy, put an unmanageable strain on local services, destroys wildlife routes and go against the government’s policy and guidelines. If it is necessary for green belt to be used, then the proposed development of FRO03 is geographically the most appropriate green belt release. The character of this part of Frodsham is very different to the other areas, and the landscape impact would be much less damaging here than it would be in FRO01 and FRO02. Whereas FRO01 and FRO02 would require a large level of local infrastructure to make them more sustainable, the proximity of FRO03 to the town centre makes it more feasible to use existing infrastructure. If green belt needs to be released, it should be in sustainable locations that can support the future of Frodsham – FRO03 can do this, but FRO01 and FRO02 cannot. Higher density mixed housing would be much better suited to FRO03 so that the release of the green belt is more economical and efficient. I hope you will consider these objections and refrain from ruining the important natural land that forms the areas in FRO01 and FRO02.

Comment

Representation ID: 9318

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Carmen Goulden

I&O_9812
I'm writing to you to help preserve the green belts around Frodsham and Weaverham. I object to building anything on these lands. The policy numbers are in the subject bar above. (SS 11, SS 41, SS 42 and SS 43)

Option A - Retain the Green Belt

Comment

Representation ID: 9325

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Burden

I&O_9819
I am rejecting policies SS41,42,43. I am saying no to FRO01 & 02

Comment

Representation ID: 9331

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Donna Burden

I&O_9825
I am rejecting policies SS41,42,43. I am saying no to FRO01 & 02

Comment

Representation ID: 9403

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Mellor

FRO01 & FRO02
I&O_9898
Dear sir/madam I write to object to the proposed allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02 in Frodsham, as part of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local plan 2025 consultation. I urge the council to remove these sites from the plan on the basis of sound planning grounds and material considerations, detailed below.  1. Highway safety and traffic congestion  The addition of significant housing numbers on FRO01 and FRO02 would exacerbate traffic problems on already overstretched local roads, including Fluin lane and Langdale way. These residential roads not designated for large increases in vehicle use. There are known bottlenecks around the A56 and Station Road, and local junctions already suffer from congestion at peak ties and when there are problems on the M56 the area becomes completely gridlocked.  The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 111 states that development should be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.  No evidence has been presented to show how the local road network would cope with increase vehicle movements, nor have mitigation measures been specified.  2. Strain on Local Infrastructure  Frodsham already faces significant pressure on public infrastructure and essential services. GP practices in the area are oversubscribed, you cannot get an NHS dental space, local schools are near capacity and public transport links do not offer sufficient alternatives to car travel.  The NPPF (paragraphs 20 and 34) requires Local Plans to ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided in a timely manner to support development. The council has not produced clear infrastructure delivery plans for health or education provision specific to these sites. Allocating more housing without a binding and funded infrastructure strategy risks overburdening already stretched local services, to the detriment of new and existing residents alike.  3. Flood Risk and Drainage Concerns  There is a well-documented history of surface water flooding around Langdale Way and lower-lying areas of Frodsham. Significant drainage works were undertaken in the past to prevent recurrence. However, the addition of hard, impermeable surfaces from new housing would increase runoff, putting adjacent homes and roads at renewed risk.  Under NPPF paragraph 159, development must be directed away from areas at highest risk of flooding. Any scheme must also demonstrate how it will avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. There is no detail in the plan showing that a sustainable drainage strategy has been considered or how it would be implemented on these greenfield sites.  4. Biodiversity and Harm to Ancient Woodland  Hob Hey Wood lies adjacent to these proposed development sites and is a designated ancient woodland. Under NPPF paragraph 180(c), development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy. The proximity of these sites to Hob Hey Wood would significantly increase human disturbance, light pollution, pet intrusion, and sever wildlife corridors that currently link the woodland to open countryside. These cumulative impacts are likely to have long-term, irreversible effects on biodiversity and protected species in the area.  There is no ecological justification or assessment provided in the plan to show how harm would be avoided or mitigated. 5. Unsustainable Site Selection and Conflict with NPPF Principles The rationale for selecting these sites appears to be based predominantly on their proximity to Frodsham railway station. However, proximity does not equate to sustainable development if the site is environmentally constrained and lacks the infrastructure to support new housing.  The NPPF (paragraph 8) sets out the three overarching objectives of sustainable development : economic, social and environmental. These proposals are unbalanced, placing development pressure om the Green Belt and sensitive ecological areas without adequate public benefit.  Furthermore, this approach runs contrary to the brownfield -first principle embedded in national policy, and the plan fails to demonstrate why less environmentally sensitive sites elsewhere in the borough have not been prioritised. 6. Green Belt Harm  Both FRO01 and FRO02 are designated Green Belt. The NPPF (Paragraph 140) makes clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, fully evidenced and justified. Developments here conflicts with NPPF paragraphs 137-140, which require 'exceptional circumstances' to justify Green Belt release. 42% of the local plan is deemed to be Green Belt. The current housing quotas for Frodsham is 250 without touching Green Belt, the proposed sites are looking to build 1339 on greenbelt land, I can't see how building 1314 more homes than what is required constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. No such justification has been convincingly provided for releasing these sites. The contribution of FRO01 and FRO02 to the openness and purpose of the Green Belt - including preventing urban sprawl and safeguarding the countryside - remains significant.  Development here would permanently erode the rural setting of Frodsham, contrary to both national policy and local public sentiment. To conclude: For the reasons outlined above, the inclusion of FRO01 and FRO02 in the Draft Local PLan 2025 is unsound on the basis that it is: Not justified by robust evidence base, Not consistent with national planning policy Not effective in terms of infrastructure delivery Not legally compliant with environmental protection and sustainability duties  I therefore respectfully request that the council remove sites FRO01 and FRO02 from the Local Plan and explore more sustainable alternatives in line with planning policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 9491

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Helena Taylor

SS41
I&O_9986
I live in Frodsham and am responding to the Local Plan Issues & Options consultation (Regulation 18), specifically Section 5.1 and Questions SS41–SS43. I object to the proposed housing allocations at FRO01 (east of Townfield Lane) and FRO02 (east of Kingsley Road). Summary of Objection  Loss of Green Belt without robust justification Harm to Hob Hey Wood and ecological corridors Urbanisation of Frodsham’s rural edge Increased traffic and worsening air quality Flood risk from loss of permeable land Lack of infrastructure capacity (GPs, schools) Detailed Grounds for Objection Green Belt & Spatial Strategy FRO01 and FRO02 sit on Frodsham’s most sensitive Green Belt edge, adjacent to ancient woodland and open countryside. National planning policy requires exceptional circumstances to justify Green Belt release, and demands that all reasonable alternatives be fully tested first. That evidence has not been presented at Regulation 18. Releasing these parcels would materially erode the Green Belt and set a damaging precedent for future encroachment. Ecology & Hob Hey Wood Hob Hey Wood is designated ancient woodland and a Site of Biological Interest, supporting protected and priority species including multiple bat species. Development at FRO01/FRO02 would sever functional habitat corridors unless wide, guaranteed buffers and dark corridors are secured at the plan stage. Standing advice recommends minimum 15m buffers, but indirect impacts (light, noise, hydrology, recreation pressure) often require substantially more. Without mapped, continuous habitat corridors and demonstrable biodiversity net gain, allocation is premature and risks long-term ecological harm. Settlement Edge & Townscape Character The fields east of Townfield Lane form the last rural outlook for Greenside Avenue and nearby streets. They act as a visual and amenity buffer between the town and open countryside. Large-scale development here would fundamentally alter the character of this edge, replacing a tranquil rural setting with suburban sprawl. This conflicts with the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan’s emphasis on high-quality design and landscape integration. Transport & Air Quality The A56 corridor is frequently congested, particularly during M56 incidents when traffic diverts through Frodsham. Adding significant housing at this edge without firm, funded mitigation—such as active travel infrastructure, bus service enhancements, and junction upgrades—risks worsening congestion, safety, and air quality. Frodsham’s air quality has only recently improved; further pressure could reverse that progress. Flood Risk & Drainage The greenfield land around Hob Hey currently helps attenuate surface water runoff. Development here would reduce natural absorption and increase the risk of surface water flooding and sewer exceedance. Without extensive on-site attenuation, SUDS, and safeguarded exceedance routes, downstream areas—including Greenside Avenue—could be adversely affected. Infrastructure Capacity Local GP and school capacity is already under pressure. There is no clear, costed infrastructure package demonstrating how services will expand in line with new housing. Without guaranteed delivery aligned to occupancy triggers, existing residents may face reduced access to essential services. Requested Outcome Do not take FRO01 and FRO02 forward to the preferred strategy at Regulation 19.

Comment

Representation ID: 9505

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Jamie Dodd

I&O_10000
FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable; FR002 relies on the road B5152 and is completely not fit for purpose, contains green belt land, a wildlife corridor,  and is extremely important to the visitor economy and visual aesthetics of the Sandstone Trail. FR001 presents a flood risk, and the loss of wildlife, ancient woodland, and habitat from the neighbouring Hob Hey Wood would be detrimental to the entire Frodsham community. FRO03 would be considered the most suitable, but only in a considered and meaningful way. FRO03 has access to the A56, but urban sprawl would damage the image and character of Frodsham, and there is a need to retain a large buffer zone between the two distinctive towns of Helsby and Frodsham. FRO03 would need significant investment in the road infrastucture to handle the additional road traffic, and an increase in conurbations here should be done on a limited scale. 

Comment

Representation ID: 9657

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Robinson

I&O_10153
I am writing as an objection to the above planning applications. Just for traffic reasons alone this plan is not feasible.  The traffic will increase on our housing estate 20 mph roads like Langdale Way which are already overcrowded and then cause even worse congestion on the A56/Fluin Lane junction. There are not enough services in Frodsham for another large influx of people, it is almost impossible to get a doctors appointment now and under this plan things will be made worse. Frodsham needs it green space and parks for our future generations and our green space should be protected without any compromise.

Comment

Representation ID: 9660

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Liz Evans

I&O_10156
I wish to register my objection to the proposed plans for the development of land off Townfield Lane Frodsham and Bradley Lane Frodsham. This development would endanger the environment.

Comment

Representation ID: 9767

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Shingler

FRO01,FRO02
I&O_10264
I am writing to object to the above planning application for construction of houses in and around Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham. (FRO01,FRO02) The site lies within a designated Green Belt land. Under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 147-151, new housing is considered inappropriate development in Green Belt except in special circumstances. The applicant has not demonstrated such circumstances. The proposal would undermine the purpose of Green Belt ,i.e, Preventing urban sprawl and encroachment into countryside, safeguarding character and openness of rural land. Preserving the setting and special character of surrounding communities, particularly around Bradley area.  The development would result in a loss of open countryside and erode the openness of Green Belt. Regarding the infrastructure, Frodshams GP and Dental surgeries are already under pressure,and this amount of housing would add to this. Also,the road networks,particularly the Lakes estate,Kingsley rd,Bradley Lane would be unable to cope with this amount of new traffic,particularly at peak times,raising concerns re highway safety and air quality. Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding fields are an important habitat for wildlife. Development would lead to habitat loss,contrary to NPPF requirements to conserve and enhance biodiversity. In summary,the proposed development is contrary to both local and national planning policy,and represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For these reasons,I respectfully request that the council refuse this planning application,

Comment

Representation ID: 9770

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Triantis

I&O_10267
I am writing to object to the planning proposals SS41, SS42, and SS43. There are brownfield sites in and around Frodsham that have been identified in the past as suitable for development. These would be far better places for new housing, as they make use of land that has already been built on rather than destroying valuable green space. Hob Hey Wood is a huge asset to our town. It is beautiful, peaceful, and something that makes Frodsham special. The walk down to the wood through the surrounding fields is part of the whole experience, and developing those areas would strip away much of that character. The woodland itself is important for people’s health and well-being, it supports wildlife, and it helps absorb rainfall. Even though the houses are not planned inside the woodland, building on the adjacent fields would remove natural land that currently soaks up rainwater. This will mean more surface water run-off flowing down into the town, raising flood risks. We’ve already seen flooding in the centre of Frodsham during heavy rain, and before remedial works around 10 years ago, the Lakes Estate used to flood regularly. Adding more hard surfaces in these fields risks bringing those problems back. Hob Hey Wood and its approach are not just practical green space but part of Frodsham’s heritage and identity. Generations of residents have enjoyed these walks, and the fields leading into the wood create a sense of arrival that makes the woodland unique. Losing this setting to housing would permanently damage something that is woven into the town’s character and community. Frodsham’s roads are already at breaking point. Rush hour brings regular queues on every major route, and if there are problems on the M56 the whole town quickly becomes gridlocked. Some areas, such as the Lakes Estate, can even feel cut off in these situations. On top of that, the swing bridge is a single point of failure for the town — the recent attempt to plan repairs had to be cancelled because closing it would have caused too much disruption. Adding hundreds of houses in this situation would be unsustainable. Local GP surgeries and dental practices are already very stretched, and it’s hard for people to get appointments as it is. Schools in the area are also close to full. Bringing in a large number of new residents without first improving these services will only make things worse for everyone. I understand the need for new housing, but it has to be done in the right places and with the right investment in infrastructure. Hob Hey Wood and its surrounding fields are not the right place. With more suitable brownfield sites available, and with local roads, healthcare, schools, flooding risk and even the town’s heritage already under pressure, these proposals would be damaging to Frodsham. I strongly urge you to rethink policies SS41, SS42, and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 9774

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Judy Cunningham

I&O_10271
I am stating my objection to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43. The proposed site near Hob Hey Wood is totally unsuitable for any development and will overload the already hard pressed GPs, Dentists and Schools to say nothing about the amount of traffic the area has to contend with.

Comment

Representation ID: 9925

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lyndsey Dodd

I&O_10422
FRO01 and FRO02 are completely unsuitable; FR002 relies on the road B5152 and is completely not fit for purpose, contains green belt land, a wildlife corridor,  and is extremely important to the visitor economy and visual aesthetics of the Sandstone Trail. FR001 presents a flood risk, and the loss of wildlife, ancient woodland, and habitat from the neighbouring Hob Hey Wood would be detrimental to the entire Frodsham community. FRO03 would be considered the most suitable, but only in a considered and meaningful way. FRO03 has access to the A56, but urban sprawl would damage the image and character of Frodsham, and there is a need to retain a large buffer zone between the two distinctive towns of Helsby and Frodsham. FRO03 would need significant investment in the road infrastucture to handle the additional road traffic, and an increase in conurbations here should be done on a limited scale. 

Comment

Representation ID: 9927

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Cawood

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_10424
I strongly object to the allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02. Their inclusion conflicts with both the Local Plan’s own objectives and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly in relation to sustainable development, environmental protection, flood risk management, and safe transport.   I strongly object to the allocation of sites FRO01 and FRO02. Their inclusion conflicts with both the Local Plan’s own objectives and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly in relation to sustainable development, environmental protection, flood risk management, and safe transport.

Comment

Representation ID: 10066

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elaine M. Potts

I&O_10563
1.    I would like to use this opportunity to state how angry I am at how poorly this has been communicated to residents (having received someones homemade flyer pushed through the letter box 26/08/2025), the ridiculous deadline and how difficult it has been to register on your consultancy feedback site which simply fails to deliver any registration completion. This proposal is textbook poor council engagement ! 2.    As an 83 year old widow  I am now extremely anxious what the future may hold for my long standing family home , my health, my wellbeing and ultimately my future. Thankfully family has come to my aid to fill the gap disgracefully left by the council in offering any help to me in receiving, accessing and digesting this information. 3.    I most directly, firmly and strongly object to any building on FR001 and FR002 , two parcels of greenbelt land that border my property and include the Hob Hey woodland, rural farmland and essentially Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. 4.    Yet again, this proposal is a text book example of poor planning; a.    It effectively destroys the green belt and associated wildlife. b.    Increases population density. c.    Strains local services (inclusive of schools and GP surgeries). d.    Overloads roads that are predominantly rural; creates rat-runs for new builds. i.    The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked, especially at peak times. This is made worse at times when the M56 is congested, partially closed or shut completely. e.    Impacts the health and wellbeing of existing residents that have worked all their lives to choose to live in a rural location and NOT in the middle of effectively a new town development. f.    Existing home owners will see their property price value drop considerably as new development removes the very features that give existing homes their worth. 5.    I firmly require that FR001and FR002 to be removed from development plans entirely; it is neither acceptable or justified. 6.    My objection therefore demands that the proposal be rejected in full.

Comment

Representation ID: 10266

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kim and Mike Ryan

I&O_10763
We object to policies SS41,SS42 and SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 10317

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heather Watkins

SS41
I&O_10814
I’m wanting to put forward an objection to the planning of houses on Hob Hay woods SS41,SS42,SS53, Strongly disagree with the plans , we all need to protect green belt lane not destroy it , very frustrating sad that all these local areas are loosing green belts , destruction of trees ancient woodland is unexceptionable. Cause more pollution from traffic in Frodsham which is already under strain , there will be a impact on the wildlife that desperately need these places to survive and our survival does depend on wildlife and nature, what about protecting for future generations, for your own loved ones ? This should not be taken for granted! Increased risk of flooding, strain on the local schools , Gp and dentists in the area . People use this area for exercise and mental wellbeing which is very important. Hob Hey woods is not only ancient woodland, filled with national rare species, it is also archaeological importance, please save and protect green belt areas .i would like to disagree with any plans to FR001 , FR002

Comment

Representation ID: 10381

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Georgia Atherton

I&O_10878
I’m emailing to object to the proposed developments in Frodsham, including policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.