Comment

Representation ID: 9332

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Donna Burden

I&O_9826
I am rejecting policies SS41,42,43. I am saying no to FRO01 & 02

Comment

Representation ID: 9376

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Little Stanney and District Council

FRO01&FRO02
I&O_9871
As a local resident I object to FR001 & FR002 The necessary infrastructure to cope with the traffic is currently inadequate and would be greatly exacerbated, should these developments go ahead. It would be the loss of the essence of what makes Frodsham special and an agreeable place to live should you take away this final part of our green space, not to mention the loss of flood risk, wildlife corridors, woodland, air quality and mental health would suffer as a result. More pollution for the north, more health issues, more strain on current services, who already, cannot cope with what they have to deal with. Please no more buildings in what was once referred to as ‘the jewel in the crown’ for Vale Royal Borough Council

Comment

Representation ID: 9442

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Andy Mellor

SS42
I&O_9937
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: 9456

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Trustees & Beneficiaries of Ms D Bentley dec'd

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_9951
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9507

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Helena Taylor

SS41
I&O_10002
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: 9591

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: C, M and R Allsop

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10087
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9598

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Oliver

SS42
I&O_10094
I am writing to object to your plans to allow developers to build on the land near hobhey Wood.  As a resident of [address redacted], I am concerned as to the increased volume of traffic that this would lead to. At present, whenever there are issues with the M56, I have a stationary queue of traffic outside my house (I live at the hobhey wood end of [address redacted]). If more homes are built in this area I feel it will add to congestion and ultimately impact my daily life and that of my neighbours.  I have lived in frodsham all my life and have appreciated these green areas since my youth and even more so now I have matured.  On this basis, I strongly object to the suggestion of allowing developers to built houses on this green belt land.

Comment

Representation ID: 9658

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Antony Robinson

I&O_10154
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: 9661

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Liz Evans

I&O_10157
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: 9705

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group and J Whittingham

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10201
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9768

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kathryn Shingler

FRO01,FRO02
I&O_10265
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: 9771

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Triantis

I&O_10268
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: 9775

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Judy Cunningham

I&O_10272
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: 9776

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Judy Cunningham

I&O_10273
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: 9827

Received: 03/09/2025

Respondent: SA, and SJ Arden, J C Coombs and J Hand

Agent: J10 Planning

I&O_10324
FROD1 and 2 suffers from poor access and comprises quality BMV FROD3 appears the most logical

Comment

Representation ID: 9928

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kate Cawood

I&O_10425
These sites are not suitable for the following reasons: Proximity to Hob Hey Wood. This historic and ecologically significant woodland is a vital community and biodiversity asset. It is also a place of quiet sanctuary and peace that I regularly visit with my family. Development would cause unacceptable harm, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 174–180, and contrary to Local Plan Strategic Policy ENV4 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity). Highways and access constraints. There is no safe or suitable access. The surrounding road network, particularly Fluin Lane and its junctions, is already severely congested. NPPF paragraph 110 requires development to ensure safe and suitable access for all users. The Council’s Local Transport Plan (LTP4) also prioritises congestion reduction and safety. Unsustainable travel. Extra traffic will make the area more dangerous for walking and cycling, contrary to NPPF paragraphs 111–112, and conflicting with the Council’s Climate Emergency commitments (2019) to support active travel and carbon reduction. Flood risk. These sites are on sloping land, close to existing surface water drainage channels and areas already affected by heavy rainfall. Development would increase impermeable surfaces, raising the risk of flooding both on-site and downstream. This is contrary to NPPF paragraphs 159–161, and to Local Plan Strategic Policy ENV1 (Flood Risk and Water Management).

Comment

Representation ID: 9962

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lucy Oliver

I&O_10459
 I object to possible congestion and overcrowding of the area. I am a resident of Silverdale close. Yours sincerely.

Comment

Representation ID: 10067

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elaine M. Potts

I&O_10564
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: 10093

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Janet de Haas

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_10590
I wrote to you recently on the subject of the proposed development in Frodsham. I would like to clarify that I am objecting to the development on sites FRO01 and FRO02. In my previous email I referred to these areas as the eastern edge of Frodsham, which I realise is a bit vague. My objection is on the basis of the following Loss of greenbelt land and footpaths and the benefits it provides through exercise and connection to nature. Loss of wildlife habitat. Possible damage to Hobhey wood, an ancient woodland with rich wildlife. Extra demand for public services which are already overstretched. Increased congestion on the roads and in the town Additional air pollution, the local air quality is poor already. Light pollution in the countryside

Comment

Representation ID: 10111

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Bradford

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_10608
To: Cheshire West and Chester   Planning Department Ref CWAC Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18) July 2025 Dear Sirs, I write in respect of Cheshire West and Chester Council’s consultation on proposed sites for housing development as part of its Local Plan update. This includes land at:   - FRO01 and FRO02 – bordering Hob Hey Wood Cheshire West and Chester council highlighted many green belt areas to build houses on to meet their Government housebuilding target. One of these is in Frodsham, the area between the Lakes Estate and Bradley, adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. It appears this area was chosen due to proximity to Frodsham Train Station, without any consideration to its suitability. Housebuilding on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) would have serious detrimental effects for the town, its residents and local nature (specifically Hob Hey Wood). I do not believe that house building on FRO01 and FRO02 is a sensible and suitable solution and other areas within Cheshire West and Chester should be chosen instead. I ask for FRO01 and FRO02 to be removed from development plans. Neighbourhood Plan Frodsham Town Council drew up a Neighbourhood plan which was approved by a local referendum in November 2024. The plan took into account current and future housing needs. This should take priority as it was considered to be legally binding and would be integrated into any future CWAC housing policies. The local plan did not envisage the release of any greenbelt land for housing stock. According to the 2021 census Frodsham had a population of approximately 9300. The results of a survey by Frodsham Town Council in preparation for the Neighbourhood plan found that only 3% of respondents identified the need for new housing and a net affordable housing need of 61 units. This local level of need does not support the release of greenbelt for new housing within Frodsham, especially so given the size of the current population, but could be found within the current confines of the town. The addition of some 250 new dwellings could well increase the population of Frodsham by somewhere in the region of 10%. This would be unacceptable to the current residents who voted to approve the Neighbourhood Plan drawn up by the Town Council. Ancient Woodland One of the areas of greenbelt identified are fields adjacent to and abutting Hob Hey Wood, an area of ancient woodland owned by Frodsham Town Council and managed by an active group of local volunteers. Apart from being an area well-loved and well used by locals, Hob Hey Wood is an outstanding untouched area and home to an incredible array of flora and fauna, many of which are considered to be rare. The fields currently provide both a buffer to the woods from the nearest housing and an additional complimenting space to the enhancement of the wildlife that is present. The encroachment of any new housing adjacent to Hob Hey Wood would have a major detrimental effect and is likely to drastically upset the ecological balance that currently exists. Household pets are known to have a negative impact on wildlife and the woods would be a magnetic attraction for cats, which could wreak untold havoc. A potential increase in local dog walks could also have a negative impact. Hob Hey Wood is a functioning ancient woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. A development of any nature adjacent to Hob Hey would break those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once they have been lost. Furthermore the wood is a haven for both wildlife and equally for local people who enjoy walking in the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature, such as reduced anxiety and depression. Greenbelt The Greenbelt is there for a reason. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. The proposal does not comply with National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 137–140 states that Green Belt land should only be developed in “exceptional circumstances”. According to Policy STRAT 9 in the CWAC Local Plan 2025, Green Belt and countryside;  the intrinsic character and beauty of the Cheshire countryside will be protected by restricting development to that which requires a countryside location and cannot be accommodated within identified settlement s. Also, under section 5.77 of the Local Plan;  In line with national planning policy, inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate, however exceptions to this are identified in the National Planning Policy Framework. Exceptions allow for development, providing they preserve the openness of land and purposes of including it within the Green Belt . None of the  exceptions  stated in the document under section 5.77 would be applicable to Frodsham. Flood Risk Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR001 and FR002 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way. Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. United Utilities stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues happening again. Current Infrastructure According to Policy Strat8 Rural Areas,  Development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made . There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes means more pressure, more waiting and more stretched services. Air Quality and Light Pollution Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. General Traffic The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town along the A56. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. The proposals FR001 and FR002 could add in the region of 500 hundred extra vehicles to the town which would only make the current problem even worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk Vehicle Access Both domestic and construction vehicles from any development adjacent to Hob Hey Wood will be forced to enter and exit by two routes only: Townfield Lane or Langdale Way. Neither road appears to be suitable for any significant increase in traffic flow, especially heavy wagons during the construction phase. Townfield Lane joins the B5152 at a busy junction near to a pedestrian crossing. Vehicles turning into Townfield Lane from the B5152 often already cause a hold-up of traffic on the B5152. Additional traffic flow into Townfield Lane will only exacerbate this problem. Langdale Way joins onto the B5394 quite close to the junction with the A56, the main arterial route through Frodsham. This junction is already very busy especially so at peak travel times with traffic queuing for some considerable distance on the B5394 waiting to turn onto the A56. Archaeological sites of cultural importance The unique Bradley Medieval Field and Hedgerows System is of great scientific, ecological and cultural importance. There are also numerous partly excavated Roman Camps and Anglo Saxon hillforts. It is also very likely that the original crossing of the River Weaver and Roman Road  was in the area of Bradley Orchard. Summary I do not believe houses should be built on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) in Frodsham. FRO01 and FRO02 should be removed from development plans. Yours faithfully,

Comment

Representation ID: 10122

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Camille Bradford

I&O_10619
To: Cheshire West and Chester   Planning Department Ref CWAC Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18) July 2025 Dear Sirs, I write in respect of Cheshire West and Chester Council’s consultation on proposed sites for housing development as part of its Local Plan update. This includes land at:   - FRO01 and FRO02 – bordering Hob Hey Wood Cheshire West and Chester council highlighted many green belt areas to build houses on to meet their Government housebuilding target. One of these is in Frodsham, the area between the Lakes Estate and Bradley, adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. It appears this area was chosen due to proximity to Frodsham Train Station, without any consideration to its suitability. Housebuilding on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) would have serious detrimental effects for the town, its residents and local nature (specifically Hob Hey Wood). I do not believe that house building on FRO01 and FRO02 is a sensible and suitable solution and other areas within Cheshire West and Chester should be chosen instead. I ask for FRO01 and FRO02 to be removed from development plans. Neighbourhood Plan Frodsham Town Council drew up a Neighbourhood plan which was approved by a local referendum in November 2024. The plan took into account current and future housing needs. This should take priority as it was considered to be legally binding and would be integrated into any future CWAC housing policies. The local plan did not envisage the release of any greenbelt land for housing stock. According to the 2021 census Frodsham had a population of approximately 9300. The results of a survey by Frodsham Town Council in preparation for the Neighbourhood plan found that only 3% of respondents identified the need for new housing and a net affordable housing need of 61 units. This local level of need does not support the release of greenbelt for new housing within Frodsham, especially so given the size of the current population, but could be found within the current confines of the town. The addition of some 250 new dwellings could well increase the population of Frodsham by somewhere in the region of 10%. This would be unacceptable to the current residents who voted to approve the Neighbourhood Plan drawn up by the Town Council. Ancient Woodland One of the areas of greenbelt identified are fields adjacent to and abutting Hob Hey Wood, an area of ancient woodland owned by Frodsham Town Council and managed by an active group of local volunteers. Apart from being an area well-loved and well used by locals, Hob Hey Wood is an outstanding untouched area and home to an incredible array of flora and fauna, many of which are considered to be rare. The fields currently provide both a buffer to the woods from the nearest housing and an additional complimenting space to the enhancement of the wildlife that is present. The encroachment of any new housing adjacent to Hob Hey Wood would have a major detrimental effect and is likely to drastically upset the ecological balance that currently exists. Household pets are known to have a negative impact on wildlife and the woods would be a magnetic attraction for cats, which could wreak untold havoc. A potential increase in local dog walks could also have a negative impact. Hob Hey Wood is a functioning ancient woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. A development of any nature adjacent to Hob Hey would break those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once they have been lost. Furthermore the wood is a haven for both wildlife and equally for local people who enjoy walking in the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature, such as reduced anxiety and depression. Greenbelt The Greenbelt is there for a reason. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. The proposal does not comply with National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 137–140 states that Green Belt land should only be developed in “exceptional circumstances”. According to Policy STRAT 9 in the CWAC Local Plan 2025, Green Belt and countryside;  the intrinsic character and beauty of the Cheshire countryside will be protected by restricting development to that which requires a countryside location and cannot be accommodated within identified settlement s. Also, under section 5.77 of the Local Plan;  In line with national planning policy, inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate, however exceptions to this are identified in the National Planning Policy Framework. Exceptions allow for development, providing they preserve the openness of land and purposes of including it within the Green Belt . None of the  exceptions  stated in the document under section 5.77 would be applicable to Frodsham. Flood Risk Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR001 and FR002 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way. Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. United Utilities stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues happening again. Current Infrastructure According to Policy Strat8 Rural Areas,  Development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made . There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes means more pressure, more waiting and more stretched services. Air Quality and Light Pollution Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. General Traffic The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town along the A56. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. The proposals FR001 and FR002 could add in the region of 500 hundred extra vehicles to the town which would only make the current problem even worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk Vehicle Access Both domestic and construction vehicles from any development adjacent to Hob Hey Wood will be forced to enter and exit by two routes only: Townfield Lane or Langdale Way. Neither road appears to be suitable for any significant increase in traffic flow, especially heavy wagons during the construction phase. Townfield Lane joins the B5152 at a busy junction near to a pedestrian crossing. Vehicles turning into Townfield Lane from the B5152 often already cause a hold-up of traffic on the B5152. Additional traffic flow into Townfield Lane will only exacerbate this problem. Langdale Way joins onto the B5394 quite close to the junction with the A56, the main arterial route through Frodsham. This junction is already very busy especially so at peak travel times with traffic queuing for some considerable distance on the B5394 waiting to turn onto the A56. Archaeological sites of cultural importance The unique Bradley Medieval Field and Hedgerows System is of great scientific, ecological and cultural importance. There are also numerous partly excavated Roman Camps and Anglo Saxon hillforts. It is also very likely that the original crossing of the River Weaver and Roman Road  was in the area of Bradley Orchard. Summary I do not believe houses should be built on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) in Frodsham. FRO01 and FRO02 should be removed from development plans. Yours faithfully,

Comment

Representation ID: 10130

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: David Bradford

SS42
I&O_10627
To: Cheshire West and Chester   Planning Department Ref CWAC Local Plan Issues and Options (Regulation 18) July 2025 Dear Sirs, I write in respect of Cheshire West and Chester Council’s consultation on proposed sites for housing development as part of its Local Plan update. This includes land at:   - FRO01 and FRO02 – bordering Hob Hey Wood Cheshire West and Chester council highlighted many green belt areas to build houses on to meet their Government housebuilding target. One of these is in Frodsham, the area between the Lakes Estate and Bradley, adjacent to Hob Hey Wood. It appears this area was chosen due to proximity to Frodsham Train Station, without any consideration to its suitability. Housebuilding on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) would have serious detrimental effects for the town, its residents and local nature (specifically Hob Hey Wood). I do not believe that house building on FRO01 and FRO02 is a sensible and suitable solution and other areas within Cheshire West and Chester should be chosen instead. I ask for FRO01 and FRO02 to be removed from development plans. Neighbourhood Plan Frodsham Town Council drew up a Neighbourhood plan which was approved by a local referendum in November 2024. The plan took into account current and future housing needs. This should take priority as it was considered to be legally binding and would be integrated into any future CWAC housing policies. The local plan did not envisage the release of any greenbelt land for housing stock. According to the 2021 census Frodsham had a population of approximately 9300. The results of a survey by Frodsham Town Council in preparation for the Neighbourhood plan found that only 3% of respondents identified the need for new housing and a net affordable housing need of 61 units. This local level of need does not support the release of greenbelt for new housing within Frodsham, especially so given the size of the current population, but could be found within the current confines of the town. The addition of some 250 new dwellings could well increase the population of Frodsham by somewhere in the region of 10%. This would be unacceptable to the current residents who voted to approve the Neighbourhood Plan drawn up by the Town Council. Ancient Woodland One of the areas of greenbelt identified are fields adjacent to and abutting Hob Hey Wood, an area of ancient woodland owned by Frodsham Town Council and managed by an active group of local volunteers. Apart from being an area well-loved and well used by locals, Hob Hey Wood is an outstanding untouched area and home to an incredible array of flora and fauna, many of which are considered to be rare. The fields currently provide both a buffer to the woods from the nearest housing and an additional complimenting space to the enhancement of the wildlife that is present. The encroachment of any new housing adjacent to Hob Hey Wood would have a major detrimental effect and is likely to drastically upset the ecological balance that currently exists. Household pets are known to have a negative impact on wildlife and the woods would be a magnetic attraction for cats, which could wreak untold havoc. A potential increase in local dog walks could also have a negative impact. Hob Hey Wood is a functioning ancient woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. A development of any nature adjacent to Hob Hey would break those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once they have been lost. Furthermore the wood is a haven for both wildlife and equally for local people who enjoy walking in the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature, such as reduced anxiety and depression. Greenbelt The Greenbelt is there for a reason. National guidance is clear: development on Greenbelt land must be avoided unless there are absolutely no alternatives. In this case, there are alternatives. The proposal does not comply with National Planning Policy Framework. Paragraph 137–140 states that Green Belt land should only be developed in “exceptional circumstances”. According to Policy STRAT 9 in the CWAC Local Plan 2025, Green Belt and countryside;  the intrinsic character and beauty of the Cheshire countryside will be protected by restricting development to that which requires a countryside location and cannot be accommodated within identified settlement s. Also, under section 5.77 of the Local Plan;  In line with national planning policy, inappropriate development is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be allowed except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is considered inappropriate, however exceptions to this are identified in the National Planning Policy Framework. Exceptions allow for development, providing they preserve the openness of land and purposes of including it within the Green Belt . None of the  exceptions  stated in the document under section 5.77 would be applicable to Frodsham. Flood Risk Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR001 and FR002 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way. Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. United Utilities stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues happening again. Current Infrastructure According to Policy Strat8 Rural Areas,  Development should not exceed the capacity of existing services and infrastructure unless the required improvements can be made . There is no spare capacity in Frodsham’s infrastructure. GP practices are running at limit. Schools are close to capacity. New homes means more pressure, more waiting and more stretched services. Air Quality and Light Pollution Frodsham is already inside an Air Quality Management Area. Cars are the top local pollutant. FR001 and FR002 would bring more cars, more exhaust and more noise into a space that’s supposed to be protected. Lighting from new housing, cars and street lamps will spill into Hob Hey Wood and rural zones. This ruins habitat for nocturnal species and affects human sleep cycles. Light pollution has a detrimental effect on bats. There are seven species present in Hob Hey Wood including the rare Nathusius’ pipistrelle. Moths are also affected by light pollution. General Traffic The A56 and main roads through Frodsham are regularly gridlocked. When the M56 is closed or partially shut, all diverted traffic comes through the town along the A56. The Weaver Viaduct carries over 112,000 vehicles daily. That number spikes during roadworks, collisions or closures. None of this is future risk. It's already happening. The proposals FR001 and FR002 could add in the region of 500 hundred extra vehicles to the town which would only make the current problem even worse. Emergency vehicles already struggle to get through. This development will slow response times even more, putting lives at risk Vehicle Access Both domestic and construction vehicles from any development adjacent to Hob Hey Wood will be forced to enter and exit by two routes only: Townfield Lane or Langdale Way. Neither road appears to be suitable for any significant increase in traffic flow, especially heavy wagons during the construction phase. Townfield Lane joins the B5152 at a busy junction near to a pedestrian crossing. Vehicles turning into Townfield Lane from the B5152 often already cause a hold-up of traffic on the B5152. Additional traffic flow into Townfield Lane will only exacerbate this problem. Langdale Way joins onto the B5394 quite close to the junction with the A56, the main arterial route through Frodsham. This junction is already very busy especially so at peak travel times with traffic queuing for some considerable distance on the B5394 waiting to turn onto the A56. Archaeological sites of cultural importance The unique Bradley Medieval Field and Hedgerows System is of great scientific, ecological and cultural importance. There are also numerous partly excavated Roman Camps and Anglo Saxon hillforts. It is also very likely that the original crossing of the River Weaver and Roman Road  was in the area of Bradley Orchard. Summary I do not believe houses should be built on green belt land (FRO01 and FRO02) in Frodsham. FRO01 and FRO02 should be removed from development plans. Yours faithfully,

Comment

Representation ID: 10205

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Alison Battersby

I&O_10702
With reference to proposed growth area FRO01, FRO02 and FRO03, I wish to object on the following grounds in relation to the congestion which this development will cause if approved, and other points raised below. FRO01 and FRO02 The proposals do not fit with: National policy 10.1 Plans should promote sustainable patterns of development including making effective use of  land in urban areas (NPPF, paragraph 11) and align growth and infrastructure. 10.2 Planning Policies should set out a clear economic vision and strategy which positively and  proactively encourages sustainable economic growth (NPPF, paragraph 86a) and should support the  role that town centres play at the heart of local communities by taking a positive approach to their growth,  management and adaptation (NPPF, paragraph 90). 10.3 The government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt  policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of  Green Belts are their openness and their permanence (NPPF, paragraph 142). FRO03 The farmland adjacent to Dig Lane is, I understand, proposed to be downgraded from Green Belt to Grey Belt on the pretext of it being ‘poor quality.’ I have lived in Frodsham for almost 40 years and have seen the proposed area continually cultivated and farmed. If it were poor quality and not economically viable for farming, then it would not have been worked in this way. If this is downgraded and this released for housing development, it will be a scandalous back door to destroying the countryside whilst claiming to preserve Green Belt, and will open the door to similar reclassification to the longer term detriment of all.  

Comment

Representation ID: 10267

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Kim and Mike Ryan

I&O_10764
We object to policies SS41,SS42 and SS43

Comment

Representation ID: 10278

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Eric Rafferty

FR01 FR02
I&O_10775
I wish to object to the proposal to develop areas of land for housing adjacent to Hob Hey Wood, Frodsham. These areas are identified in planning documents as FR001and FR002.  I object because the areas in question are criss crossed with long established, well used footpaths leading through attractive countryside with views of land adjacent to the River Weaver and Beacon Hill Frodsham. Development of these areas would remove the opportunity for the use and enjoyment of these areas for informal recreational activities with associated physical fitness and mental health benefits.

Comment

Representation ID: 10281

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Carole Heale

FRO01 and FRO02
I&O_10778
Dear Sir/Madam I most strongly object to the development of 2 parcels of green belt land FR001 and FR002. That border Hob Hey wood. this would increase flood risks, overload the roads.  Put strain on local services and destroy wildlife routes.  If approved this will damage the down. Traffic - our main roads in Frodsham are already regularly blocked, especially if there is a problem on the M56 causing major hold ups in the town. The burden of extra houses in the town would render the town to a standstill. Overburdened infrastructure- The local GP practices, dentist and schools are already under pressure, as the town is now. Destruction of wildlife corridors and Damage to Ancient woodland. - We are blessed to Have hob hey wood, which is well used by walkers, and wildlife enthusiasts, families and generally helps to combat mental health issues for those that use it. More houses would erode this special woodland and could lead to flooding. We would lose an amazing green space used by the community. I urge the council to reject this application in line with its obligations under the local planning policy framework (NPPF) particularly with regard to protecting biodiversity, promoting sustainable development and ensuring sufficient infrastructure is in place. Yours faithfully

Comment

Representation ID: 10318

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Heather Watkins

SS42
I&O_10815
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: 10382

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Georgia Atherton

I&O_10879
I’m emailing to object to the proposed developments in Frodsham, including policies SS41, SS42 and SS43.

Comment

Representation ID: 10484

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tanya Leonard

FR01, FR02
I&O_10982
Yes, don’t build on FRO01 and FRO02. This is not a polite suggestion. It is a firm and direct objection to building on FR001 and FR002, two parcels of Greenbelt land that border Hob Hey Wood and form part of Frodsham’s only remaining rural buffer. This proposal is a textbook example of poor planning: it increases flood risk, overloads roads, strains local services, destroys wildlife routes, and rips up national policy. If approved, it will damage the town and everyone in it.

Comment

Representation ID: 10485

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Tanya Leonard

I&O_10983
Objections in detail Severe Impact on Ancient Woodland Hob Hey is a Site of Biological Interest and ancient woodland, Britain’s most biodiverse habitat. The wood is home to thousands of species varying from common, to locally scarce, to nationally rare. Over 800 species are listed on the national biological recording site iRecord. Many species only occur in ancient woodland, an increasingly rare habitat. The wood is a haven for both wildlife and local people who enjoy walking the woodland and reaping the benefits of being in nature such as reduced anxiety and depression. Improvements to the immune system and reduced blood pressure also result from time spent in nature. Source: Nature and Mental Health Report’, Mind. Source: ( https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Farticles%2FPMC9665958%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cspatialplanning%40cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%7Cab169e974bc74252839008dde5ac6275%7C9cd0230785364d0abe00c4062a2326a2%7C0%7C0%7C638919250892096098%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=n61vMOXXGNE8cXrF0fGU1A2%2B69%2FsGLPh3Jl4YGpN4bo%3D&reserved=0 ). Wildlife Corridors Will Be Destroyed Hob Hey Wood is not a decorative patch of trees. It is a functioning woodland used by many species that need access to the surrounding environment. The wood connects to wider habitat corridors through the FR001 and FR002 areas. These corridors keep the ecology alive. Building here breaks those links forever. You can’t replace a hedgerow or regenerate a breeding ground once it’s buried under concrete. Source: Planning Inspectorate – https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk%2Fpublished-documents%2FEN010153-000069-6.1_ES%2520Vol%25201%2520Chapter%25207%2520Terrestrial%2520Ecology.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cspatialplanning%40cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%7Cab169e974bc74252839008dde5ac6275%7C9cd0230785364d0abe00c4062a2326a2%7C0%7C0%7C638919250892123300%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=504M8JMogRFOweip2ph1krE8JuWOixhd9zaQ1%2BpEweI%3D&reserved=0 Significant Disturbance to The Woodland Hob Hey is relatively secluded. Building hundreds of houses nearby could lead to significant disturbance of the woodland and its wildlife. The resulting huge increase in pets would result in problems. Cats are supreme predators which would take a toll on wildlife. Dogs would also disturb wildlife and their feces have been shown to cause nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Source: https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2022%2Ffeb%2F07%2Fdog-pee-and-poo-harming-nature-reserves-study&data=05%7C02%7Cspatialplanning%40cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%7Cab169e974bc74252839008dde5ac6275%7C9cd0230785364d0abe00c4062a2326a2%7C0%7C0%7C638919250892139465%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FHC5A90rh2K1lZFYfU4IGujs5I%2BC%2BA2DRjBam4Bt2U0%3D&reserved=0 Flood Risk is Not a Hypothetical Surface water flooding is the biggest threat to homes in England today. Over 4.6 million homes are now at risk from it. That’s double the number at risk from rivers or coastal surge. In Frodsham, those risks already exist. Hob Hey Wood and the green land around it act as a sponge. They slow rain and reduce flood peaks. Building on FR002 and FR001 means water runs off faster, overloading drains and pushing into homes and roads. The council’s own Flood Risk Assessment warns against removing these natural barriers. From the late 1990’s to 2005 this happened in Langdale Way! Residents experienced multiple sewerage floods leading to a campaign involving both the council and United Utilities to resolve the issue before the houses became uninsurable. This resulted in a year long disruptive excavation at Manor House School fields to install huge tanks to stem the catastrophic floods. UU stated that this was the only site that that type of construction could take place. House building adjacent could result in these issues arising again! Source: Cheshire West SFRA – https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%2Fdocuments%2Fparking-roads-and-travel%2Fhighways%2Fflood-risk-assessment-final-report.pdf&data=05%7C02%7Cspatialplanning%40cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%7Cab169e974bc74252839008dde5ac6275%7C9cd0230785364d0abe00c4062a2326a2%7C0%7C0%7C638919250892155343%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=lhiBZ9dihiDYA4UvPMhjOBJr9aUI%2BM5Vyr11gFzRHb0%3D&reserved=0 Source: Financial Times – https://gbr01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Fff3bb769-9339-4015-80bc-4a3ea446504e&data=05%7C02%7Cspatialplanning%40cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk%7Cab169e974bc74252839008dde5ac6275%7C9cd0230785364d0abe00c4062a2326a2%7C0%7C0%7C638919250892174103%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=prG7CfzIMResahi8gt6k5hxhQeEzKVJbJ%2Fv%2F2aRd%2BCM%3D&reserved=0