Comment

Representation ID: 8514

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: James Mills

FRO01 &FRO02
I&O_9005
I [address redacted] back onto Hob Hey Wood and the surrounding open 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 the 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 communal orchard in Hob Hey Wood, that is loved and used 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 so many peoples pleasure of walks and family days out.  There would also be a great concern about the amount and increase of traffic in 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 of Frodsham would make it even harder to access these services. We regularly have gridlocks in the traffic in Frodsham due to accidents and incidents to the M56, people use Frodsham as an alternative route and it causes absolute chaos .  It's wonderful to see the ever changing scenery with the seasons around us, 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 in the past, we need to preserve what green land we have left. 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 and whole heartedly object to any planning permission and property development in FRO01 and FRO02.

Comment

Representation ID: 8529

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs L Williamson

I&O_9020
I am objecting to building on hob hey wood Frodsham. policies ss41,ss42,ss43.

Comment

Representation ID: 8538

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs G Moore

I&O_9029
I write having just been made aware of the Cheshire West and Chester local plan, Draft Spatial Strategy Options – Option B (follow current local plan level and distribution of development). The following, objecting, comments also apply to Option C (sustainable transport corridors). Regarding the potential building of housing adjacent to and bordering Hob Hey Wood in Frodsham - FRO01 & FRO02 , there appear to be multiple reasons for objection that cannot have been given proper consideration when formulating these plans. Green Belt Protection Given the current climate emergency, it is irresponsible to build on green belt land. Green belt land should only be bult on in exceptional circumstances, of which the plans shown would be an egregious misuse of the land and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. 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 and 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 With the wood being Frodsham’s remaining ancient woodland it is a cherished, ecologically sensitive ancient woodland with high biodiversity and public value, used as a quiet refuge by many, which will be irrefutably ruined if housing is so close, a considerable blow to the mental and physical health of those who use it. Building so close will have a detrimental effect on the woodland even if the wood itself is not touched; irreversible habitat destruction, edge effects such as the change in water run-off, light, litter, noise and air pollution when built would negatively impact on every aspect of the wood and wildlife therein (including bats). Development would harm visual amenity, remove key wildlife corridors, degrade views for locals and affect walking routes. Additionally, building would violate the national and local biodiversity and Natural England principles on protecting ancient woodland buffer zones. Traffic and Infrastructure Pressure The harm sustained during construction would be unjustifiable. With no existing road infrastructure improvements proposed to cope with the increased volume of vehicles and notwithstanding the inevitable dust and noise issues, there is only one possible access/egress route for construction traffic, Langdale Way, which would cause significant issues. Traffic build-up would be unreasonable, with the Langdale Way/Fluin Lane junction becoming blocked and the Fluin Lane/Main Street junction following suit. Langdale Way is unsuitable for construction traffic and permanent increased flow; the road surface is already full of potholes which would only increase in number and size (the council will already be liable for vehicle damage considering the time the current defects have been there and this would increase). The vibrations from construction traffic would have the ability to damage the foundations of existing housing, creating another liability. Construction traffic would undoubtedly consist of diesel-powered vehicles, many of which would not meet the latest emissions standards regarding particulates and as the Supreme Court has set a precedent that vehicle emissions can be directly linked to health issues, any newly arising issues of such nature could be subject to legal action. If built, how would residents access/egress the Lakes Estate? The problems outlined above would remain and Townfield Lane is unsuitable (both in road surface and space) for any more commuter traffic. There are insufficient jobs within Frodsham, so a large increase in commuter traffic would be unavoidable. Furthermore, Frodsham/Helsby already suffers severe congestion/gridlock, at school run times and especially around the M56 junctions/whenever there is an issue with the M56 (i.e. very frequently), whilst the Weaver swing bridge is unable to cope with the existing level of traffic without requiring frequent repairs, so how could it possibly survive with an increased load? This would all increase air pollution and further exacerbate the problems experienced by emergency vehicles. Stating or expecting that new residents would use the train for transport is naïve at best and there is insufficient station car parking to accommodate them if they do, as the majority would not walk that distance to the station. Lack of Infrastructure Capacity/Overdevelopment How would Frodsham’s current facilities accept such a population increase (potentially up to 50%); the GP practices have already been ejecting patients from their registers who are close/on neighbouring council areas, so where is the capacity to accept new patients? The same is true for no expansion capacity in Frodsham’s dentists, schools, social services and shopping; the development would be unsustainable and therefore contrary to national guidelines. Water run-off/drainage/sewer capacity has previously been a major issue on the Lakes Estate, especially in Langdale way (necessitating the building of underground water tanks) and the areas of FRO01 & FRO02 currently act as a sponge; building over them will likely make the issue return and with no further tank storage space available, where would this excess water and sewage go? Further Comments The land identified in FRO01 includes the Townfield Allotments with over 80 tenants including a special school plot and an adult care support plot. The whole site is registered as an assert of Community Value and includes a memorial orchard and a field hedge planted in 2016 in memory of World War One, therefore it should not be disturbed. Food sufficiency is a major issue for the UK, with the percentage of food imported continuing to grow and further increase the national debt that the government is trying to reduce, all while world politics and climate change continues to make the global food supply more fragile. As a nation, we should be encouraging our farmers to produce food, not building on productive agricultural land particularly land that is of good quality. As a final point, I note that there was not an option of a meeting for residents of Frodsham to attend and comment; why?

Comment

Representation ID: 8553

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Miles

FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03
I&O_9044
I am writing to object to the plans to build houses on the proposed greenbelt areas of Frodsham FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03 (SS41, SS42, SS43). One of the main attractions of people moving to Frodsham is its semi-rural location and the green belt which separates it from the neighbouring communities of Sutton Weaver, Runcorn, Kingsley and Helsby. The proposed developments would completely change the nature of the village and the appeal to anyone wanting to settle there. Additionally it would have an impact on the local wildlife, such as foxes, badgers, birds of prey and bats. As well as removing their habitat, there would be impact of air, noise and light pollution (bearing in mind many of these creatures are nocturnal). In addition, the current dwellings would be bordering the reserve of Hob Hey woods, which would significantly increase the amount of human-wildlife interactions, which do not always end positively. The infrastructure in Frodsham is under pressure now without the added pressure of 2,500 new families. Any new developments would also require an overhaul of the current infrastructure facilities, with new road networks, transport networks, additional school places, health & dentist facilities, recycling centre, banking facilities (only 1 currently opened) and social care facilities. The cost of such development would not be borne by the housing construction companies, but by the local authorities and ultimately the taxpayer. Currently, in Frodsham there is a wide variety and price  of homes available, from Park Homes for the over 55s, to the large houses and bungalows on Fluin Lane. There are houses available to meet everyone's budget, and currently some of these houses are remaining on the market for over 9 months before being sold. This does not point to there being a boom in demand for any new house builds in the vicinity. Therefore, I do not see where there will be a demand for over 2,500 new houses, especially when this has come at the cost of the green belt area which does attract newcomers. If you take the example of nearby Helsby, where a large housing development has already gone bust, and had to be taken over by a rival builder, it does not bode well for any green field development in Frodsham. Frodsham has been very successful in the last few years of re-developing sites which had outgrown their original purpose. Several churches, the Cheshire Cheese Pub, the Old Hall Hotel and the old Library building have all been repurposed to provide additional accommodation in the village without taking away from the appearance of the character of the buildings developed. Frodsham still has many empty buildings which could benefit from such development, as well as the brownfield sites next to the Health Centre, land next to Gleaves Garden Centre or industrial park on Fountains lane. In conclusion I do not think there is the current demand in Frodsham for the scale of housing outlined in the current plans, especially if this is at the detriment to the character of the village and surrounding areas. There are more tailored options available, using current buildings and brownfield sites, which would enhance the nature of the village, and create a limited but more sustainable housing plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 8607

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Nick Jardine

FRO01 & FRO02
I&O_9098
Frodsham is unique in that it is thriving market town that has ambitions to take advantage of its location to encourage more tourism, which in turn, opens opportunities for local business to flourish. This opportunity would be forever lost if the proposals to use FR001 & FR002 were to happen. Building on these plots would destroy the appeal and charm that has consistently, drawn people to Frodsham. This could, surely not, be seen as a positive move, particularly for a government that is trying to encourage business growth to improve the economy. Furthermore, this area of Frodsham is green belt and good quality farmland which borders Hob Hey wood. Hob Hey wood is an ancient woodland, rich in rare species of plants and wildlife which would be under significant risk of depletion if the suggested plans go ahead. The proposed fields surrounding the woods provide outdoor space for walking which has long been enjoyed by the residents of Frodsham.   Access surrounding the proposed development sites are already strained, the estate faces daily congestion, largely from school traffic. Introducing an influx of vehicles poses an alarming risk to safety of the children going to school as well as adding to an already overly congested area of the town. There are other areas of the town which would be more suitable for development, as they have direct access to the main road, some of which have been suggested by the Town Council. The proposed site: FR003, would be the more logical area to build on, if more suitable, brown belt sites cannot be obtained. FR003 has direct access onto the main A56 road and it would accommodate a significant number of dwellings. This plot would not cause traffic congestion through existent estates. There are also areas of land within the town which border the main road such as, fields and brown belt situated between the river and the swing bridge as well as the land bordering the road between Frodsham and Kingsley near to Lady Heyes (B5152). Another suitable plot, which offers a substantial amount of space is Forest hills Hotel. The hotel had applied for planning permission in the past, this site would be suitable as it already manages a large volume of vehicles which frequent through the day.  I understand that the town requires more houses to be built but careful planning is needed in to the number and locations suggested. There is also the issue of the depletion of air quality if thought is not given to the position of the development. Previously, air pollution tests have been conducted near to FR001 and FR002 and the projected levels were deemed too high to initiate alterations to road layout. The number of houses suggested should take into consideration the limitations of the town, a number closer to 500 would be manageable, especially if FR003 was the chosen location as it is within walking distance of local amenities such as shops, doctors and the high school. As this area is within waling distance of the town it would prevent the already limited number of parking spaces being overloaded. For example, the train station has no scope to expand its limited parking area (which are already consistently full) nor does it have the ability to extend the size of the station itself.   The projected time frame of the houses being built should allow for the town to adapt to the growth. It would be sensible to plan for the development of the number of houses over the 20 years to be carefully and evenly spread to allow for this.

Comment

Representation ID: 8614

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Roger and Sue Frost

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9105
  Objection to Proposed Development in Frodsham FR001, FR002 A Detailed Case Against Expansion Cheshire West's proposed development plans involve extensive house building in Frodsham, on areas surrounded by protected countryside and Green Belt. This objection details the reasons such development should not proceed, focusing on breaches of planning policy, environmental harm, infrastructure constraints, and the risk of altering the local landscape forever. Green Belt Policy and National Planning Framework The Green Belt around Frodsham is designed to prevent urban sprawl and safeguard natural countryside. Development here is only permitted under ‘exceptional circumstances', which have not been demonstrated in this instance. Local Neighbourhood Strategy and Sustainability Frodsham's Neighbourhood Plan-created and approved with local involvement-shows that the town's housing needs can be met without building on the Green Belt. The plan underscores the importance of preserving open fields and green corridors. Wildlife, Ecology, and Landscape Impact The proposed development would break up habitats, threaten protected species, and violate legal. obligations to maintain biodiversity. Frodsham is close to critical ecological sites, and the LocaI Plan Part Two outlines stringent protections for these areas. Infrastructure and Overload Risk LocaI infrastructure-roads, schools, and GP practices-is already under strain. Additional homes would increase the pressure, and currently, there is no confirmed plan to improve or expand these services. Transport and Settlement Identity Although Frodsham has a train station, transport links are limited and no upgrades are planned to accommodate large population growth. Historic Character and Community Value The proposed expansion would undermine the historic and community character of Frodsham, cherished for its market town atmosphere, local green spaces, and scenic views. Final Statement : The Green Belt serves a crucial purpose. These development proposals are contrary to policy, unnecessary and pose a risk to the long-term quality of life in Frodshasm.         Key Objections to Development near and around Hob Hey Wood (FR001 and FR002) Objection : Development on FR001 and FR002 is strongly opposed due to increased flood risk, heavier road traffic, pressure on local services, fragmentation of wildlife routes, and violation of national policy. Traffic lssues : The A56 and other main roads through Frodsham are already congested, and further development would worsen the problem, even affecting emergency response times. Townfield Lane is already heavily blocked by residents parking, creating only single lane passage, restricting access and limiting the ability of emergency vehicles to pass safety through. This area cannot manage any further traffic increases. lmpact on Ancient Woodland : Hob Hey Wood, an ancient woodland and recorded as a Site of Biological Interest in 1992, would suffer greatly. Home to thousands of species, the wood provides both ecological and mental health benefits. For over 100 years there have been significant badger setts within the wood, nesting owls, and areas covered by native English bluebells. Ancient woodland cover is now only 2.4% in Britain; a fraction of what it once was. Frodsham's ancient woodland is now owned by Frodsham Town Council, protected as a Field in Trust, and looked after by Hob Hey Wood Friends Group, which was to ensure that it remains, an extremely important asset for the people of Frodsham to enjoy for many years to come. Destruction of Wildlife Corridors : The planned development would remove essential wildlife corridors connected to Hob Hey Wood, which are vital for local biodiversity. Disturbance to Woodland : Housing built close to the woodland would disturb habitats and wildlife, with domestic pets posing further risks. Flood Risk : The development would increase the chance of surface water flooding, a problem already noted in the area. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment advises against removing natural barriers. lnfrastructure Strain : Local GPs and schools are full, and the new development would stretch them further-without any clear plans for new public services. Air Quality and Light Pollution : More development would mean poorer air quality and more light pollution, harming both wildlife and people. Antisocial Behaviour and Isolation : Estates built without proper integration risk social fragmentation and increased antisocial behaviour. House Prices : Removing the natural features that give existing homes their value is likely to reduce property Prices. Green Belt lmportance : The Green Belt should remain intact-there are alternatives available. Breaching it here sets a dangerous precedent.

Comment

Representation ID: 8629

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Pamela Foster

I&O_9120
Areas FRO01 and FRO02 simply cannot be built on. This is direct and unequivocal objection to developing on FR001 and FR002 in any way whatsoever. These are sections of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This is terrible planning - it increases flood risk, increases congestion on roads, increases pressure on local services, destroys wildlife, and is completely unnecessary. Brownfield sites are available if approved, it will cause irreparable damage to the town of Frodsham as a whole.  Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland - a very biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Ancient woodland is becoming an increasingly rare habitat.  I thoroughly enjoy going into Hob Hey on a daily basis and seeing the different species and at dusk time to see the bats around the area. It is also a haven for both wildlife and residents who enjoy walking and relaxing in the woodland. This has the huge benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression, as well as overall health in general.   My own mental health would significantly be affected with these proposed changes.   I brought my house in this area four years ago and the main reason was the location next to Hob Hey Wood. See source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665958/  Also, wildlife corridors will be destroyed - Hob Hey Wood 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 which keep the ecology alive. If these are replaced with concreate then these corridors and connections are broken permanently. Hedgerows and breeding grounds are gone forever once they are buried under concrete. Furthermore, Hob Hey Wood is a secluded area. With hundreds of homes built nearby, the disturbance to the woodland and its wildlife will be severe. The increase in noise, not just from humans but from pets such as dogs would further add to the devastation. Cats are also known to hunt the local wildlife. See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming-nature-reserves-study?fbclid=IwY2xjawMOqBNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHu7aRTddKKu-NeZwoCdazX_cVxHwahiphhs7eLmBMleAuq8ORwQCC5TZFtlz_aem_fvyVbU7hSZ5u5VCY5MTP6g Flood Risk would become unacceptable: The Greenbelt including Hob Hey Wood acts as a sponge and slows down the rain run-off. Absorbing it and keeping it away from existing houses. Building on FR001 and FR002 would massively increase the flood risk. Indeed the council's own survey has warned against removing this flood barrier. 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. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! See this report on Cheshire West Council's own website: https://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/documents/parking-roads-and-travel/highways/flood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf

Comment

Representation ID: 8641

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: M.G Clarke

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9132
I am writing to respond to the above Consultation Document. I wish to state overtly that the nature of the online presentation of this Policy Consultation Document is of such a poor quality that I could neither navigate nor complete this online response form. As such, and having consulted with my local Councillors, I am submitting this email as a formal response.  The designated areas above FR001 and FR002 contain unequivocal Green Belt. The designated areas above FR001 and FR002 contain over 80 Community Allotments, as well as a community orchard and children's play area. The allotments include a school plot and a specialist adult care plot, both of which are heavily used and contribute to this community's stability, welfare and health. The playground serves the extensive nearby estate as well as the properties south of Townfield Road to Bradley Lane. It is well used and well maintained by both Frodsham Town Council, Voluntary Organisations and the local Community. The fields surrounding the allotments consist of prime agricultural land, farmed literally for centuries, which would be lost forever....at a time when the country's population is growing exponentially and in need of the food that is grown here. It is inconceivable to consider the destruction of Primary Greenbelt agricultural  land and the orchard, school allotment, community allotment and adult care allotments therein. Has this seriously been considered? FR002 descends to below the flood plain, which a survey would have outlined, with a natural spring and resulting stream having served the once water mill at Bradley Lane and which still floods in winter. FR002 builds directly adjacent to a local and Officially Graded and Protected Ancient Woodland. With this carries the protected species within it. There are better qualified experts within this area of Environmental concerns who will doubtless summon the Legal Redress, should permission be given for building. Even this Government's bonfire of their view of "Red Tape" cannot legally ride roughshod over that. Now for the transport infrastructure.....or lack of it. Our roads our gridlocked on a virtually daily basis. Investigate for yourselves....! The constant accidents on the parallel M56 motorway further excessively exacerbate this. Police and Fire Brigade Reports will verify this and I strongly recommend a consultation. Local services are at breaking point....no surprises there then. All told, and in view of all of the above....and I emphasise that my outline is but some of the considerations,  I am dismayed that this is a serious consideration. Having spent 42 years in the construction industry, my company would require some spectacular incentives to build, considering all elements here, the possibility for legal delays and not to mention "social Housing" quotas in a prestige area.

Comment

Representation ID: 8663

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (North West) Ltd and Bloor Homes Ltd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9154
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 8673

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Tina White

I&O_9165
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: 8677

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Brian Daly

I&O_9169
Options B and C sacrifice Cheshire West and Chester’s long-standing commitment to green belt protection and the preservation of village character, while placing undue pressure on the A56 corridor and an already overstretched rail service. The Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan presents a fully evidenced, community-led alternative: 250 homes on brownfield and infill sites, delivered in phases that respect local heritage, design quality, and transport capacity.   I respectfully urge the Council to reject Options B and C and to adopt the Frodsham Neighbourhood Plan allocation as the preferred housing strategy for our town. Doing so will uphold your own strategic vision, safeguard Frodsham’s unique identity, and ensure sustainable growth that the community and our infrastructure, can support.

Comment

Representation ID: 8706

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Cowley

I&O_9199
I would like to object to policies SS41, SS42 and SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 8713

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Hilary Lovick

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_9206
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: 8730

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr John Eccles

I&O_9223
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: 8792

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Robert Kellett

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9285
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: 8823

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Taylor

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9316
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: 8839

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees of G A Artell

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9332
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 8969

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Jenkins

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9462
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9027

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Boulton

I&O_9520
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 SS42

Comment

Representation ID: 9071

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Lowe

I&O_9564
I’m writing to object to the proposed development of Green Belt land between the Lakes Estate and Bradley in Frodsham, including areas surrounding Hob Hey Wood, as part of the Local Plan housing allocations (FRO01 and FRO02). This proposal raises significant concerns on multiple fronts—environmental, infrastructural, and community-related—that I urge the Council to reconsider before moving forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 9073

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Graham Lowe

I&O_9566
FRO01 and FRO02 would: - Destroy precious ecosystems - Overload fragile infrastructure - Create dangerous flood risks - Strip Frodsham of its identity - Deliver long-term harm for short-term targets   Please rethink this plan and find more suitable, sustainable locations that don’t sacrifice the town’s character or its natural assets.

Comment

Representation ID: 9075

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Povall

I&O_9568
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: 9108

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Cameron

FR001 and FR002
I&O_9601
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: 9187

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Carrie Bennett-Brown

FRO01, FRO02
I&O_9680
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: 9202

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dr and Mrs Frederick Murphy

FRO01, FR02, Hob Hey Wood
I&O_9695
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: 9234

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Dorothy Ashton

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_9727
I am writing to formally object to the proposed development on sites FRO01 and FRO02 in Frodsham. First I want to state that I have lived in my home (formally family home) for 55 years. The reason we came to Frodsham was because of the ‘Village’ small ‘Town’ atmosphere, which included the friendliness of the residence and the supporting infrastructure. I am also totally shocked that this proposal was even considered with no regard to residence of Frodsham. Below are just the key points of my objection -   This development would have a serious negative impact on the local area, including: Increased pressure on an already stretched infrastructure, roads including, schools, and GP practices. Loss of vital greenbelt land (how is it possible to change the status of Greenbelt? It was made this way for a reason) and destruction of important wildlife habitats and corridors. Greater flood risk due to removal of natural drainage and buffers. This will have a Major negative impact in the future, causing property damage. Deterioration of local air quality and increased light pollution. Surely we need to be considering people’s health and welfare. Frodsham’s remaining greenbelt is essential for the community and environment. Building on these sites would cause lasting damage and undermine both national and local planning policy. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject this proposal and remove FRO01 and FRO02 from the development plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 9244

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: AM Littler, NJM Littler and C Leigh

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9737
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9289

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Olivia Gatehouse

FRO01, FRO02, FRO03
I&O_9783
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: 9319

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Carmen Goulden

I&O_9813
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: 9326

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Adrian Burden

I&O_9820
I am rejecting policies SS41,42,43. I am saying no to FRO01 & 02